Published on 17 October 2022

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 2281/22 Hildur HARÐARDÓTTIR against Iceland lodged on 22 December 2021 communicated on 28 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s arrest and prosecution for demonstrations at the premises of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant was detained for three hours. Subsequently, after declining to settle the matter by way of a police-issued fine, the applicant was charged with refusing to obey lawful police orders to leave the Ministry premises.

By a judgment of 12 May 2021 the Reykjavik District Court convicted the applicant as charged, but suspended the determination of her sentence subject to a one-year probation. She was made to pay 47,120 Icelandic krónur (ISK) in legal fees to the defence counsel who represented her during the investigation. By a decision of 24 June 2021, the Court of Appeal refused the applicant leave to appeal against the District Court’s judgment.

The applicant complains that the measures taken against her violated her right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the Convention, and her right to freedom of peaceful assembly, under Article 11 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly, within the meaning of Articles 10 § 1 and/or 11 § 1 of the Convention, respectively (see Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, § 39, 12 June 2012; Lashmankin and Others v. Russia , nos. 57818/09 and 14 others, § 363, 7 February 2017; and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, §§ 85-86, ECHR 2015)?

2. If there was an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Articles 10 § 2 and 11 § 2, respectively? Did the alleged interference in the present case fall within the State’s margin of appreciation and, in particular, did the domestic authorities, including the courts, conduct the requisite assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the measures taken against the applicants (see, for example, Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], cited above, §§ 142-144)?