Published on 6 December 2021

THIRD SECTION

Applications nos. 29791/21 and 40600/21 Kári ORRASON against Iceland and Borys Andrzej EJRYSZEW against Iceland lodged on 28 May 2021 and 30 July 2021 respectively communicated on 15 November 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applications concern the applicants’ arrest and prosecution for demonstrations at the premises of the Ministry of Justice. The applicants were each detained for a few hours. Subsequently, after declining to settle the matter by way of police-issued fines, the applicants were charged with refusing to obey lawful police orders to leave the Ministry premises.

By a judgment of 13 October 2020, the Reykjavik District Court convicted the first applicant as charged. He was sentenced to pay a fine of 10,000 Icelandic krónur (ISK) within four weeks. In default of payment, a prison sentence of two days would be imposed. The first applicant was made to pay ISK 77,500 in court fees and ISK 516,000 in legal fees. By a decision of 30 November 2020, the Court of Appeal refused the first applicant leave to appeal against his conviction.

By a judgment of 18 November 2020, the Reykjavik District Court convicted the second applicant as charged. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of ISK 10,000 within four weeks. In default of payment, a prison sentence of two days would be imposed. The second applicant was made to pay ISK 367,040 in legal fees. By a decision of 2 February 2021, the Court of Appeal refused the second applicant leave to appeal against his conviction.

The applicants complain that the measures taken against them violated their right to freedom of expression, under Article 10 of the Convention, and their right to freedom of peaceful assembly, under Article 11 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicants sufficiently raise the Convention rights, which their applications refer to, in the domestic proceedings?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ 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)?

3. If there was an interference with the applicants’ 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)?