CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 septembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s477D0669 { width:95.7%; border-collapse:collapse } .s8DC39211 { width:7.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sEA591250 { width:28.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s49A111AE { width:27.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7D29008 { width:18.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5127BD4 { width:17.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s84496AAB { width:7.86%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFBF8C3F1 { width:28.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB83BB7DD { width:27.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDA54C31F { width:18.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59A50EAE { width:17.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt }   Published on 18 October 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 18509/19 Alain PELLEGRINELLI and Others against Switzerland lodged on 29 March 2019 communicated on 27 September 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the complaints by the first, second and third applicants (Alain Pellegrinelli, Yves Daniel, Roberth Lacatus) who regularly or occasionally revert to begging in public in the Canton of Vaud to ensure their survival. They complain about the total prohibition of begging in the Canton of Vaud as adopted on 27 September 2016 (Article   23 of the cantonal criminal code). The applicants lodged a complaint with the cantonal constitutional court, requesting the annulment of the impugned legal provision. The court rejected their request on 10 May 2017 and considered that the interference with the fundamental freedoms was proportionate to the aim pursued. The applicants appealed to the Federal Court ( Bundesgericht ), claiming that the new legal provision violated personal freedom, the right to respect for private and family life, freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, equality of treatment, prohibition of discrimination, freedom of religion and the principle of nullum crimen sine lege . They also invoked the Federal Court’s previous case-law, notably its judgment concerning the total prohibition of begging in the Canton of Geneva introduced in 2006 and which underwent an abstract review by the Federal Court in the said judgment. On 29 August 2018 the Federal Court declared admissible their public-law appeal in so far as it was understood to be directed only against the first paragraph of Article 23 of the cantonal criminal code but rejected their appeal. The Federal Court considered that there were no grounds to change its case-law established in the context of the total prohibition of begging in the Canton of Geneva. The total prohibition is justified by public interest and proportionate to the aim pursued. It furthermore considered that freedom of expression has not been violated because no communicative value could be attributed to the practice of begging. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the first, second and third applicants in the present case claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 (see Burden v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13378/05, §§   33 ‑ 34, ECHR 2008)?   2.     Assuming an affirmative answer to the first question, does the total prohibition on begging as contained in Article 23 of the criminal code of the Canton of Vaud constitute an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, is any such interference in accordance with the law, proportionate to the legitimate aim(s) sought to be achieved and necessary in a democratic society in terms of Article   8 §   2 (see Lacatus v. Switzerland , no. 14065/15, 19 January 2021)?   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Alain PELLEGRINELLI 1968 Swiss Villeneuve 2. Yves DANIEL 1988 Swiss NCU 3. Roberth LACATUS 1987 Romanian Romania 4. Luc RECORDON 1955 Swiss Jouxtens-Mézery 5. Hélène KUNG 1957 Swiss Bex 6. Anne-Catherine REYMOND 1968 Swiss Lausanne 7. Sandrine RUIZ 1964 Swiss Lausanne