LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
LAURIJSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS and 4 other applications
Doc ref: 56896/17;56910/17;56914/17;56917/17;57307/17 • ECHR ID: 001-208394
Document date: February 4, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
LAURIJSEN v. THE NETHERLANDS and 4 other applications
Doc ref: 56896/17;56910/17;56914/17;56917/17;57307/17 • ECHR ID: 001-208394
Document date: February 4, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
Communicated on 4 February 2021 Published on 22 February 2021
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 56896/17 Cornelis Jacobus Joseph LAURIJSEN against the Netherlands and 4 other applications (see list appended)
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the alleged breach of the applicants ’ freedom of peaceful assembly . In July 2011, the applicants were arrested whilst participating in a gathering of about 150 persons who had blockaded a road in central Amsterdam, in front of a squatted building which they knew was going to be cleared by police that day . They were subsequently found guilty of having acted contrary to section 2.2 of the Amsterdam by-law ( APV ) and sentenced to pay a fine (100 euros).
The Regional Court found that the applicants had committed one of the offences they had been charged with. It noted, however, that the reproached act could only constitute a criminal offence in respect of gatherings that did not fall within the scope of the Public Manifestations Act ( Wet Openbare Manifestaties ; “WOM”). Considering that there had not been a threat of disorder at the beginning, the Regional Court held that the gathering, in its early stages, fell within the scope of the WOM.
The Court of Appeal reached a different conclusion. It considered that it had been the intention of the organisers and participants from the outset to seek a confrontation with the special operations unit and physically to prevent the clearing of the squat. As such, the gathering had not been a manifestation within the meaning of the WOM and the proven acts constituted criminal offences. The Supreme Court rejected the applicants ’ appeal in cassation, adding that Article 11 of the Convention did not lead to a different conclusion since that provision did not extend to the protection of “a demonstration where the organisers and participants have violent intentions”.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicants ’ arrest and subsequent conviction? In particular, can the gathering be qualified as a peaceful assembly within the meaning of that provision ( Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany , nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08, § 103, 1 December 2011, and Primov and others v. Russia , no. 17391/06, § 155, 12 June 2014, and Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 92-99, 15 October 2015)?
2. If it were to be assumed that Article 11 was applicable, did the interference prescribed by law show a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2 ( Kudrevičius and others v. Lithuania [GC], cited above, §§ 108-110 and §§ 142-160)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged
on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1
56896/17
Laurijsen v. the Netherlands
31/07/2017
Cornelis Jacobus Joseph LAURIJSEN
1955Amsterdam
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
2
56910/17
Springer v. the Netherlands
31/07/2017
Wendy SPRINGER
1987Amsterdam
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
3
56914/17
van Oostrum v. the Netherlands
31/07/2017
Nicky VAN OOSTRUM
1984Amsterdam
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
4
56917/17
Koenen v. the Netherlands
24/07/2017
Rosa Annemarie Theadora KOENEN
1988Den Dolder
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
5
57307/17
Segal v. the Netherlands
31/07/2017
Anat SEGAL
1985Amsterdam
Dutch
Willem Hendrik JEBBINK
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
