CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

(Translation)

I willingly accept that it was "unnecessary to make a separate examination of the case under Article 10 (art. 10)" [1] . But in my view that should have meant that it was necessary to examine it not simply in relation to Article 11 (art. 11), even considering that Article "in the light of Article 10 (art. 10)" [2] , but rather in relation to both Articles (art. 10, art. 11) taken together.

By taking part in the demonstration in issue, the applicant in fact exercised both his freedom of expression and his freedom of assembly, and the conduct for which he was criticised came within the ambit of the former as much as within that of the latter. Both freedoms were in this instance more than "closely linked" [3] : the exercise of each of them was inextricably bound up with the exercise of the other.

In my opinion, the reasoning set forth in the judgment shows that there was an infringement both of freedom of expression and of freedom of assembl y [4] .

[*]  The case is numbered 21/1990/212/274.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]    The amendments to the Rules of Court which came into force on 1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 202 of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.

[1] Point 1 of the operative provisions of the judgment.

[2] Paragraph 37 of the judgment.

[3] Paragraph 51 of the judgment.

[4] See in particular paragraph 52 of the judgment.