Published on 30 January 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 63974/19, 65037/19, 4075/20, 14017/20, 20054/20, 20055/20, 20056/20, 20729/20, 20733/20, 33894/20, 33897/20, 53511/20 and 53512/20 Cristian-Mihai DIDE against Romania lodged on 29 November 2019, 5 December 2019, 13 December 2019,2 March 2020, 6 March 2020, 5 March 2020, 17 March 2020, 24 March 2020, 3 April 2020, 20 July 2020, 21 July 2020, 18 November 2020 and 18 November 2020, respectively, communicated on 13 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

All applications concern administrative penalties or measures imposed on the applicant as a result of participating in public protests (either alone or with others) against the Government or other public institutions and of making alleged offensive comments, either publicly or on his private Facebook account, about gendarmes or policemen who fined him or who were present at his or other protests. His protests and comments concerned either Government endorsed changes to criminal legislation affecting the Justice system or to legislation affecting the protected sites like the Roșia Montană mining landscape, or the manner in which the Romanian Gendarmery had quashed large demonstrations that had taken place against the aforementioned Government endorsed changes or had punished participants to such protests. The applicant described himself as a well-known participant in numerous demonstrations against actions taken by the Government or other public institutions and supporter of a non-governmental organisation promoting transparency and accountability in the manner public institutions work and interact with ordinary citizens.

On fourteen different occasions between 2 July 2017 and 18 December 2018 the applicant was warned, fined and/or his access to the Romanian Gendarmery’s webpages was blocked because:

(a) he had participated in an unauthorised public gathering protesting against the political establishment and measures taken by the Romanian Gendarmery against protesters (application no. 63974/19);

(b) he had chained himself to the fence of the Government’s building and had displayed a banner protesting governmental action concerning the Roșia Montană mining landscape (application no. 65037/19);

(c) he had posted on his private Facebook account offensive and vulgar comments about some gendarmes, comments considered capable of tarnishing the honour and reputation of the Romanian Gendarmery (applications nos. 4075/20, 33894/20, 33897/20, 53511/20 and 53512/20);

(d) he had used expressions which had been insulting for police officers and gendarmes in his chants and on the signs he had held up during a protest against actions taken by the Romanian Gendarmery during other protests (application no. 14017/20);

(e) he had used offensive expressions concerning some of the gendarmes who were surveying the protesters at a protest against legislation adopted by Parliament or the law enforcement officials fining him after a protest (applications nos. 20054/20 and 20056/20);

(f) he had used an amplifier during a protest against the removal of the chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate (application no. 20055/20);

(g) he had illuminated a public building during a public gathering with messages protesting against actions taken by the Romanian Gendarmery against protesters and had offended the law enforcement official sent to fine him (application no. 20729/20), and

(h) he had posted insulting comments on the Romanian Gendarmery’s webpage about actions taken by gendarmes in relation to protesters (application no. 20733/20).

By thirteen final judgments delivered between 8 May 2019 and 17 March 2020 the Bucharest County Court (“the County Court”) either upheld the above-mentioned penalties and/or measures imposed on the applicant in full, lowered some of the fines, or replaced some of the fines by a warning. The court held, inter alia , that the evidence adduced by the applicant had not rebutted the findings of the reports imposing penalties on him. Moreover, the penalties in question had been provided for by relevant national legal provisions, and had pursued legitimate aims. As a result, the court held that they could not violate the applicant’s rights to freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. Lastly, the penalty that was imposed on the applicant on 22 February 2018 had not violated the principle of ne bis in idem because the applicant had used the amplifier in question for almost five minutes.

In respect of applications nos. 63974/19, 65037/19, 14017/20, 20054/20, 20055/20, 20056/20, 20729/20, 20733/20, 33897/20 and 53511/20 the applicant alleged that the court proceedings examining his challenges against the penalties or measures imposed on him had been unfair and had violated his right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. He complained that the County Court, acting with bias and ignoring the evidence adduced by him, had reversed the burden of proof and imposed on him a duty to prove his innocence.

In respect of all applications the applicant alleged that the County Court’s decisions, regardless of whether they had upheld in full or not the penalties or measures imposed on him for protesting peacefully, had violated his rights to freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly guaranteed by Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Convention. He complained that, in its reviews of the measures taken against the applicant, the County Court had given greater weight to the relevant domestic law than to the relevant case-law of this Court and had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for its decisions.

In respect of application no. 20055/20, relying in substance Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the applicant alleged that the County Court had violated the principle of ne bis in idem because its judgment had effectively upheld a second penalty imposed on him by the authorities for exactly the same facts.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of applications nos. 63974/19, 65037/19, 14017/20, 20054/20, 20055/20, 20056/20, 20729/20, 20733/20, 33897/20 and 53511/20, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the penalties and/or measures against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, were the applicant’s cases dealt with by an impartial tribunal which took into account the evidence adduced by him and respected his right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention?

2. In respect of all applications, has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference justified under Article 10 § 2 and/or Article 11 § 2 of the Convention?

3. In respect of application no. 20055/20, can the penalty imposed on the applicant on 22 February 2018 be assimilated to a final conviction for the purposes of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention? If so, has the applicant been tried or punished twice for the same offence within the meaning of that provision?