THALMANN AND OTHERS v. SWITZERLAND and 1 other application

Published on 8 December 2025

FIFTH SECTION

Applications nos. 55475/21 and 21405/23
Beate Regina THALMANN and Others against Switzerland
and Alexandra Frida Maria SLOTTE and Others against Switzerland
lodged on 5 November 2021 and 23 May 2023 respectively
communicated on 18 November 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern a protest carried out by the applicants – twelve climate activists – on 22 November 2018 in a branch of Credit Suisse bank in Lausanne, and their subsequent criminal conviction of trespassing and holding an unauthorised protest.

The applicants allege, under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, that their protest, held as a mock tennis game to draw attention to the bank’s investments into coal and oil industry, was a peaceful action for the protection of the environment. They complain that the criminal sanction (fine) which was imposed on them was not necessary in a democratic society.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Are Articles 10 and 11 applicable in the circumstances of the present case? In particular, was holding a protest for protection of environment in a lobby of Credit Suisse’s bank crucial to the applicants in the present case to achieve their goal of alerting the public about the bank’s investment policies into coal and oil industry (see The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden and Ivanov v. Bulgaria, no. 44079/98, § 103, 20 October 2005)? Could Credit Suisse’s premises in the present case have been considered a “forum” for the purposes of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, given, as the applicants submit, its status as a bank of systemic importance (BIS) in Switzerland (see, mutatis mutandis, Appleby and Others, no. 44306/98, ECHR 2003-VI § 47)?

2.  If so, has there been an interference with the applicants’ rights secured by Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention on account of their criminal prosecution and conviction of trespassing and unauthorised protest?

3.  If so, was that interference justified under Articles 10 § 2 and/or 11 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, considering that the protection of environment, as a topic of public interest, in principle, benefits higher level of protection (see Ludes et autres c. France, no. 40899/22, 3 July 2025, § 97), were the criminal prosecution and the sanctions imposed on the applicants proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?

APPENDIX