CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 mai 2002

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 42 May 2002 The Gypsy Council and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 66336/01 Decision 14.5.2002 [Section IV] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Prohibition order preventing Gypsy-Romany Fair from taking place: inadmissible The first and second applicants are organisations representing the interests of the Gypsy-Romany community, of which the third and fourth applicants are members. The Horsmonden Horse Fair, a significant cultural and social event in the life of the Gypsy-Romany community in the United Kingdom, has been held every year at the Horsmonden Village Green for the last 50 years. In August 2000 the Borough Council decided to issue a prohibition order on the ground that the fair could result in serious disruption to the life of the community in the vicinity of the area where the fair was to take place. On 4 September 2000, having obtained the Secretary of State’s approval, the Borough Council issued the prohibition order. Notwithstanding the prohibition order, the police gave consent to the conduct of a limited parade on 10 September 2000 in Horsmonden. On 5 September 2000 the first applicant initiated proceedings in the High Court against the prohibition order. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted but the application was dismissed om 7 September 2000, on the ground that sufficient relevant information was before the Borough Council and the Secretary of State to enable them properly to exercise their discretion in deciding whether to issue the order. The judge stated that the Borough Council was entitled to think that the need to avoid disruption to the local settled community should take priority. He considered that the fact that the Gypsy-Romany community could go to an alternative site 20 miles away, which was approved by the local authority and the police, limited the impact of the order. He refused leave to appeal. On 10 September 2000 a parade took place at Horsmonden. The police limited it to only 60 persons, while measures taken to control entry to the village severely restricted the numbers of persons from the Gypsy-Romany community wishing to watch the parade. A fair took place peacefully the same day on the alternative site. Inadmissible under Article 11: The prohibition order interfered with the applicants’ right of freedom of assembly. However, this restriction was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. As to the necessity of the measure was necessary, the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly is not absolute and where large gatherings are concerned the impact on the community as a whole may legitimately be taken into consideration. In the present case, the fair had been growing in size through the years and in 2000 the police had identified concerns about the disruption to the local community caused, inter alia , by the “sheer volume” of visitors, indiscriminate parking, littering, a background level of increased crime and road closures. Besides, the authorities made available a site some 20 miles from Horsmonden, where large numbers of persons could assemble without causing disruption. Moreover, the police permitted a limited procession to take place in Horsmonden. While the applicants argued that it would have been possible to allow the fair to take place as usual subject to reasonable conditions regulating car parking, ensuring sufficient stewards, policing and litter collection, it would not have necessarily prevented the disorder and disruption which was anticipated. In these circumstances, the response of the authorities was proportionate, striking a fair balance between the rights of the applicants and those of the community in general: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes