CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 juillet 2022

.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 } .sC7D66CED { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 25 July 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39647/21 Zsolt István ÁRUS against Romania lodged on 22 July 2021 communicated on 8 July 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the obligation to wear a mask in public spaces in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The applicant lodged administrative proceedings against the decision of the Emergency Committee for the Harghita County rendering the mask obligatory in certain public spaces and claimed that this decision was contrary to the Romanian Constitution and laws. By a final decision of 2 June 2021, the Târgu Mureş Court of Appeal dismissed his action and found that the decision in question had been adopted lawfully. Invoking Article 2 of Protocol no. 4, the applicant complains about the restriction of his freedom of movement and alleges more specifically that such a restriction was not in accordance with the law.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to freedom of movement, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No.   4? In particular, does the obligation to wear a mask in certain public spaces represent an interference with the applicant’s right?   If so, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   2 §   3 of Protocol No.   4?