CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 mai 2026

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Legal summary May 2026 Batou v. Switzerland - 30781/22 Judgment 7.5.2026 [Section V] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Conviction of applicant, as event organiser, for failure to comply with conditions laid down in authorisation to hold public event: violation Facts – On 7   March 2019 the Department for Security, Employment and Health of the Canton of Geneva ( Département de la sécurité, de l’emploi et de la santé du canton de Genève – “the DSES”) granted the applicant authorisation to hold a night-time demonstration for International Women’s Day on 8   March 2019. The authorisation specified the time-frame and route for the march, as well as the place and time-limits for public speeches. It further stated, in particular, that the applicant was required to set up an event security team that was identifiable as such throughout the demonstration. It was specified that the applicant bore “sole personal responsibility for the demonstration, such that any disturbances [could] be attributed [to her]”, and that she therefore had a duty “to take every measure to ensure that participants complied with the conditions” laid down in the authorisation. The demonstration took place on 8   March 2019 and was attended by some 1000 women. The next day, the police sent the DSES’s Minor Offences Office a report criticising the applicant’s conduct as organiser of the demonstration. She was accused of breaches of the conditions laid down by the DSES: graffiti on shop widows, use of fireworks, an attempt to deviate from the planned route, security team insufficiently identified using only phosphorescent necklaces, its inability to properly supervise the demonstration and a breach of the duty to guide the march. In May 2020 the Police Court convicted the applicant for failure to comply with the conditions laid down for a public event under sections   5 and 10 of the Geneva Public Events Act ( loi genevoise sur les manifestations sur le domaine public – “LMDPu”), ordering her to pay a fine of 200   Swiss francs (CHF) – which could be replaced by two days’ imprisonment in the event of non-payment – and CHF   300 in court fees. In November 2020 the Geneva Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld her conviction. In December   2021 the Federal Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, upheld her conviction and ordered her to pay CHF   3,000 in costs and expenses. Law – Article   11: (1) Whether there was interference – The applicant’s conviction and fine for having failed to comply with the conditions governing the authorisation to hold a public event, in particular for having breached her duty to cooperate with the police, constituted interference with her right to freedom of assembly as guaranteed by Article   11 of the Convention. (2) Whether the interference was “prescribed by law” – the domestic authorities had acted on the basis of section   5(4) of the LMDPu, which concerned the setting-up of a security team by a person authorised to hold a public event, and of section   10 of that Act, which provided for sanctions in the event of non-compliance with the content of an authorisation to hold a public event. The applicant’s conviction had thus had a legal basis in domestic law. However, the applicant criticised the consequences of the authorities’ interpretation and application of the provisions in question. In her view, the conditions laid down – on the basis of section   5(4) of the LMDPu – in the authorisation which she had been given had been vague, unreasonable and had not enabled her to foresee what constituted punishable conduct under section   10 of the LMDPu. In that connection, in reviewing the constitutionality of section   5(4) of the LMDPu, the Federal Supreme Court had found that the relative vagueness of that provision enabled the authorities to ensure that it was applied in a manner appropriate to the particular circumstances and to impose duties and conditions which were proportionate to the risks incurred. It had to be acknowledged that the applicant’s authorisation to hold a public event had contained no further clarification as to the quality and duties of the security team she had been required to set up. Given that this point and the applicant’s arguments with reference to it raised questions extending beyond a mere analysis of the quality and foreseeability of the law, the Court found it more appropriate to incorporate that analysis in the broader assessment of the proportionality of the interference. (3) Whether the interference pursued one or more legitimate aims – The Court did not consider it necessary to rule on the question whether the impugned measure had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, as alleged by the Government, because, in any event, the interference had not been “necessary” within the meaning of Article   11 §   2 of the Convention, for the reasons set out below. (4) Whether the interference was necessary in a “democratic society” – (a) As to the prior authorisation of the event in question – In accordance with the regulations in force, the event in question had received prior authorisation. (b) As to the conduct of the applicant and demonstrators – Taking into account the general character of the points in the authorisation concerning the setting-up of a security team by the applicant and her duty to ensure that participants complied with the conditions for authorisation, the Court was not satisfied that the applicant’s breaches of her obligations under the authorisation were sufficiently established and, above all, that they had amounted to reprehensible acts within the meaning of its case-law. In the specific context of the responsibility which an event organiser could reasonably be required to assume, the Court was of the view that the fact of having been “overwhelmed by the burden” of that responsibility, even demonstrably so, could not be regarded as a reprehensible act. In the Court’s view, the present case thus showed that the national authorities seemingly enjoyed excessive latitude in interpreting the scope of the conditions laid down in an authorisation to hold a public event, in particular those based on section   5(4) of the LMDPu, and in resorting to the criminal-law sanctions provided for in section   10 of that Act. (c) As to the authorities’ conduct during the demonstration – The fact of having delivered the authorisation to hold the demonstration at the times and places specified therein had enabled the authorities to take appropriate preventive measures. The police had been present throughout the demonstration and there was nothing to suggest that they had been caught off guard by the inappropriate actions of certain demonstrators. As the latter had heeded calls to order and put an end to these acts, no arrests had been made by the police. (d) Fairness of the proceedings and procedural safeguards – It was difficult for the Court to understand how the courts could have considered it irrelevant to hear evidence from the members of the security team set up by the applicant when assessing that team’s alleged inaction and ineffectiveness and, more importantly, the applicant’s failure to comply with the obligations as to the quality and duties of the security team under the authorisation to hold a public event. Nevertheless, the courts had relied solely on the findings of the police report of 9   March 2019, the author of which had been heard as a witness, and the applicant’s arguments had been dismissed without giving convincing reasons. Moreover, the decisions of the Court of Justice and the Federal Supreme Court suggested that these courts had not duly examined the impugned interference in the light, inter alia , of the right to freedom of assembly, as guaranteed by the Swiss Constitution and the Convention. It was not apparent from their decisions that they had sought to weigh up the competing interests at stake, namely, the applicant’s right to peaceful protest and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (e) As to the sanction imposed on the applicant – The applicant had been convicted and ordered to pay a CHF   200 fine, which could be replaced by two days’ imprisonment in the event of non-payment, in addition to CHF   300 in court fees for the proceedings before the Police Court. Beyond the financial implications and the threat of imprisonment in the event of non-payment of the fine, the conviction had resulted in the refusal – which had been subsequently remedied – to issue the applicant with the certificate of good behaviour necessary for employment as a teacher. The reasoning adopted by the domestic courts did not provide sufficient explanation as to why it had been for the applicant, in her capacity as organiser, and her security team to thwart “all the unlawful manoeuvres” committed by the demonstrators, having regard, in particular, to the duty to maintain order which fell to the police. Furthermore, in finding that the applicant had failed in her duty to cooperate with the police, the courts had not in any way addressed the question whether, in order to intervene, the police had needed to be informed of the disturbances, by the applicant or her security team, or in what way the applicant’s alleged lack of cooperation with them had affected their ability to maintain order and ensure the smooth conduct of the event in general. In the Court’s view, it followed that the domestic courts had failed to weigh the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly against the alleged aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others. Nor had they taken into account the characteristics of the demonstration, in particular the fact that it had been entirely peaceful. Having regard to these considerations and the absence of any reprehensible acts on the applicant’s part, and given the fact that the demonstration had not occasioned any significant disruptions or danger, the Court considered that the applicant’s conviction – even though she had been fined the minimum amount provided for by law – had not been proportionate to the legitimate aim alleged. Her conviction had also been liable to have a “chilling effect” by deterring not only the applicant but others as well from organising future public events. The applicant had thus given up organising any further demonstrations and had pointed out that no one had volunteered to request authorisation to hold a public event with a view to the feminist march of 8   March 2022. (5) Conclusion – As the national courts had failed to give sufficient reasons to justify the impugned interference, the Court found that they could not be considered to have applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article   11 of the Convention and, moreover, had not based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts. The interference had therefore not been “necessary in a democratic society”. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article   41: no claim in respect of damage. (See Kudrevičius and Others v.   Lituania [GC], 37553/05, 15   October 2015, Legal Summary )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. To access legal summaries in English or French click here . For non-official translations into other languages click here .