CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 5 April 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 58853/18 Thomas HASCHKE against Germany lodged on 6 December 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s right to demonstrate in a context which carries both, private and public notions. A private company had organised a career and job fair under public patronage in a publicly owned Culture and Congress Centre. The fair was open to the public from 2 p.m. until 9 p.m. without admission. Amongst the predominantly private exhibitors was also the Bundeswehr , the federal armed forces. The applicant, together with several other like-minded people, demonstrated in front of the Bundeswehr exhibition stand. They voiced their conviction that the armed forces should not have been admitted for recruitment at the career and job fair, attracting attention by portraying dead bodies, using megaphones and banners as well as distributing flyers. The representative of the organising company requested the applicant and his affiliates to leave, which they only did after having continued the demonstration for several minutes. The applicant was subsequently convicted for trespassing for not having left immediately after having been asked to do so. His constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court was not accepted for adjudication without reasons. Relying on Articles 10, 11 and 14, the applicant considers the conviction for trespassing as disproportionate and discriminatory. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention, having particular regard to the fact that the demonstration took place in a context which carried both, private and public notions.   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   11 § 2?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2?