Information Note on the Court’s case-law 222
October 2018
Tuskia and Others v. Georgia - 14237/07
Judgment 11.10.2018 [Section V]
Article 11
Article 11-1
Freedom of peaceful assembly
University professors removed by police and fined following unauthorised entry into Rector’s office during protest: no violation
Facts – The nine applicants, professors working at Tbilisi State University, opposed university reforms. In July 2006 an authorised meeting took place in the Grand Hall of the main University building. At that meeting one of the applicants was “elected” as the new Rector of the University. Thereafter, a group of about twenty people, including the applicants, forced their way into the office of the acting Rector and demanded his resignation. They were subsequently removed from his office by the police and found guilty of administrative offences.
Law – Article 11 read in the light of Article 10
(a) Whether there had been an interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly – The events which had developed subsequent to the applicants’ unauthorised entry to the acting Rector’s office did not represent a standard situation of a “peaceful assembly”. While the events at issue had happened in a situation of tension, the applicants’ conduct had not been established during the domestic proceedings to have been of a violent nature. The applicants’ protest, viewed as a whole, was not of such a nature and degree as to exclude them from the scope of protection under Article 11 read in the light of Article 10 of the Convention and their removal and administrative responsibility had constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly.
(b) Whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society
(i) Removal from the office – The interference in question had a basis in domestic law and had pursued the legitimate aims of preventing public disorder and protecting the rights of others. The behaviour of the applicants had intimidated the employees and students and had disrupted the normal functioning of the educational establishment. The applicants’ protest had at the very least impeded the work of the acting Rector and his immediate colleagues for about two hours.
The applicants had been allowed to proceed, uninterruptedly, with a pre-authorised gathering in the Grand Hall of the main University building for several hours. Subsequently, they had protested for about two hours in the office of the acting Rector. The administration of the University (including the acting Rector) – and subsequently the police – had showed the necessary tolerance. No physical force had been used by the police against the applicants. Instead, as established in the course of the domestic proceedings, police officers had negotiated with the applicants for more than an hour for their peaceful removal. Moreover, after their removal from the office they had been allowed to stay on the premises of the University and continue their protest.
In view of those considerations, and given the margin of appreciation applicable in such cases, the removal of the applicants had not been disproportionate.
(ii) The applicants’ administrative responsibility – The applicants had been found guilty of administrative offences of a minor breach of public order and resistance to the police. Their conduct had disrupted public order on the university premises. Although the police had encountered no physical resistance, the applicants’ refusal (for about an hour) to obey the police officers’ repeated requests had been deemed by the domestic court to have constituted resistance to a lawful order issued by the police, notwithstanding the fact that at the end of those negotiations the applicants had left the office voluntarily.
The administrative proceedings conducted against the applicants had resulted in the imposition of fines in the amount of approximately EUR 45. None of the applicants had been arrested or detained. In view of the overall context of the events – in particular the fact that the applicants had been allowed to protest against the ongoing University reform for months by, among other ways, holding meetings on the premises of the University –, and in view of the nature of the protest in July 2006 which had culminated with the forceful entry of the applicants into the Rector’s office, the disruption to the work of the University administration, and the refusal to obey explicit and reiterated requests of the police for them to leave the office was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the interference with the applicants’ rights under Article 11 read through the prism of Article 10 had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and necessary in a democratic society.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
In considering the overall fairness of the proceedings, the Court also held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) as, despite the domestic courts failure to examine the acting Rector and his deputy in court, the applicants’ defence rights had not been restricted to an extent incompatible with the guarantees provided by that Article.
(See also Taranenko v. Russia, 19554/05, 15 May 2014, Information Note 174)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy