CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 novembre 2024

.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 } Published on 2 December 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 21693/20 Teodora-Ludmila VLAD against Romania lodged on 15 April 2020 communicated on 12 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant describes herself as an active participant in demonstrations against actions taken by the Government or other public institutions, and as a supporter of a non-governmental organisation promoting transparency and accountability in the manner public institutions work. Her application concerns administrative offence proceedings related to her participation in a public gathering in front of the Ministry of Internal Affairs on 31 July 2018. The gathering was called to protest against the alleged unlawful manner in which the Romanian Gendarmerie had fined peaceful protesters for their participation in various public protests against the Government held in 2017 and 2018. On 1 August 2018 the Gendarmerie produced a report and fined the applicant on the grounds that she had participated in a gathering undeclared to the authorities, refused to comply with gendarmes’ instructions to leave and shouted slogans against the ruling party. By a final judgment of 15   October 2018 the Bucharest County Court found the applicant liable for participating in an undeclared gathering and for refusing to comply with the gendarmes’ instructions to leave, replaced the fine by a warning, and dismissed her arguments that any sanction imposed on her violated her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The court held that the applicant had not rebutted the facts noted in the above-mentioned Gendarmerie report, which were confirmed with evidence adduced by the authorities, which served as the basis for the courts’ findings and the sanction imposed. Moreover, the sanction was lawful because the applicant had participated in an undeclared gathering. Furthermore, without referring to any evidentiary material, the court held that it could be presumed that by imposing it the authorities sought to organise the traffic in the area and to protect the protesters and the bystanders. Lastly, the court held that the warning was a proportionate sanction in the circumstances. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the impugned proceedings were unfair and violated her right to be presumed innocent. She alleged that the County Court, acting with bias and ignoring the evidence adduced by her, had reversed the burden of proof requiring her to prove her innocence. Relying on Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the County Court’s judgment of 15 October 2018 had violated her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and that the reasons given had not been relevant and sufficient. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the sanction imposed on the applicant on account of her participation in the protest of 31 July 2018, can the applicant be said to have suffered a significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (b) of the Convention (compare Sylka v.   Poland (dec.), no. 19219/07, §§   28-38, 3 June 2014, and Obote v. Russia , no. 58954/09, § 31, 19 November 2019)?   2.     If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the “criminal” charge against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s case dealt with by an impartial tribunal which took into account the evidence adduced by her and respected her right to be presumed innocent guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see Telfner v. Austria , no. 33501/96, §§ 15-19, 20 March 2001)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and/or peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 10 §   1 and/or Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference justified under Article 10   §   2 and/or Article   11   §   2 of the Convention?