Kudrevičius v Lithuania
Article 11 protects peaceful assembly, including protests that cause disruption, but deliberate obstruction of traffic is not at the core of the right, and states have a wide margin in sanctioning it.
Facts
Farmers in Lithuania, protesting about falling prices for agricultural produce, held authorised demonstrations, but then moved onto major roads and blocked them for two days, causing serious disruption to traffic. The organisers were convicted of rioting and given suspended sentences. They complained that their convictions breached their right to freedom of peaceful assembly under article 11.
Legal principle
The Grand Chamber held that there had been no violation of article 11. The court said that article 11 protects only peaceful assemblies, but that the right was not removed by the fact that a protest caused disruption, unless the organisers or participants had violent intentions. However, intentionally causing serious disruption to ordinary life, beyond that which is inevitable in a demonstration, is not at the core of the freedom protected by article 11, and states have a wide margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of measures to restrict it. The sanctions imposed were proportionate. The decision has been relied on in English cases about protest, including Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler.
Related cases on religion, expression, assembly and association (articles 9 to 11)
- Attorney General v Guardian Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1990] 1 AC 109
- Demir and Baykara v Turkey (2009) 48 EHRR 54
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Ziegler [2021] UKSC 23, [2022] AC 408
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Handyside v United Kingdom (1979) 1 EHRR 737
- Jersild v Denmark (1995) 19 EHRR 1
- Kokkinakis v Greece (1994) 17 EHRR 397
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
