Published on 4 December 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 54936/20 SERBIAN-CHINESE FRIENDSHIP SOCIETY FDH against Serbia lodged on 1 December 2020 communicated on 16 November 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant society’s attempt to hold public protests in Serbia as regards the situation of Falun Gong and its members in the People’s Republic of China. The protests, planned for 17 and 18 June 2016, however, were ultimately banned by the Serbian authorities on the grounds of public safety. Specifically, they considered that if the demonstrations were to be held there would have been a risk of counter-demonstrations taking place simultaneously which, in turn, could have led to clashes between the two groups of protestors.

The applicant society complains under Article 11 of the Convention that it suffered a violation of its freedom to assemble peacefully. Notably, it argues that there was no real risk of the clash referred to above and that the official assessment in this regard was hence merely speculative, i.e. without a proper investigation of the relevant facts having been carried out. More generally, the applicant society submits that even the existence of a real possible risk to public safety, stemming from counter-protestors, cannot in itself warrant the banning of planned peaceful protests. If that were not the case, violent groups would always be able to supress the rights of others.

The applicant society furthermore complains under Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 11, that it had no effective domestic remedy at its disposal in this connection. In particular, the judicial review proceedings were of a post hoc character and the still ongoing proceeding before the Constitutional Court have taken too long to be deemed effective in this particular case.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant society exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of the banned protests planned for 17 and 18 June 2016? In particular, while the Court has already held that a constitutional appeal is, in principle, an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Vinčić and Others v. Serbia , nos. 44698/06 and 30 others, § 51, 1 December 2009), can the constitutional appeal lodged on 18 July 2016 be considered effective in the very specific circumstances of the present case and given that the Constitutional Court, as alleged by the applicant society, has yet to examine it and adjudicate the matters raised therein (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Story and Others v. Malta , nos. 56854/13 and 2 others, § 80, 29 October 2015, with further references, as regards the “speed of the procedure for remedial action [which] may also be relevant to whether it is practically effective in the particular circumstances of a given case”)?

2. Has there been a violation of the applicant society’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention, in respect of the banned protests planned for 17 and 18 June 2016 (see, for example and mutatis mutandis , Barankevich v. Russia , no. 10519/03, § 33, 26 July 2007; Fáber v. Hungary , no. 40721/08, §§ 40 and 43, 24 July 2012; Frumkin v. Russia , no. 74568/12, § 129, 5 January 2016; Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v. Austria , 21 June 1988, § 32, Series A no. 139; and Stankov and the United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden v. Bulgaria , nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95, § 107, ECHR 2001-IX)?

The respondent Government are furthermore invited to submit any and all specific information/documentation regarding the alleged public safety concerns on the basis of which the said protests were banned, as well as such information/documentation regarding any official investigation that may have been carried out in this context.

3. Did the applicant society have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 11, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, for example, Alekseyev v. Russia , nos. 4916/07 and 2 others, § 99 in fine , 21 October 2010, in so far as it relates to the judicial remedy’s post hoc character)?