CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 avril 1991

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. April 1991 Ezelin v. France - 11800/85 Judgment 26.4.1991 Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Disciplinary sanction imposed on an avocat because he had not dissociated himself from a public and unrestrained demonstration in which protests were made against judicial decisions and had refused to give evidence to investigating judge: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION Question of refusal to give evidence a secondary one, not coming within ambit of Articles 10 and 11. II.   ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION In circumstances of case, Article 10 was to be regarded as a lex generalis in relation to Article 11, a lex specialis . Conclusion : separate consideration unnecessary (unanimously). III.   ARTICLE 11 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Whether there had been an interference Term "restrictions" in paragraph 2 of Article 11: could not be interpreted as not including measures taken after a meeting. Applicant had, in joining the demonstration, availed himself of his freedom of peaceful assembly and had not himself made threats or daubed graffiti. B.   Whether interference had been justified 1.   "Prescribed by law" Legal basis of sanction complained of lay solely in special rules governing profession of avocat . 2.   Legitimate aim Prevention of disorder. 3.   "Necessary in a democratic society" Proportionality principle: demanded that a balance be struck between requirements of purposes listed in Article 11 §   2 and those of expression of opinions by persons assembled on streets or in other public places. Pursuit of just balance must not result in avocats being discouraged, for fear of disciplinary sanctions, from making clear their beliefs on such occasions. Reprimand complained of: had been at lower end of scale of disciplinary penalties and had had mainly moral force – however, freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly was of such importance that it could not be restricted in any way, even for an avocat , so long as person concerned did not himself commit any reprehensible act on such an occasion – sanction not necessary in instant case. Conclusion : violation (six votes to three). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Non-pecuniary damage: finding that there had been a breach of Article 11 afforded sufficient just satisfaction in itself. B.   Costs and expenses incurred in one national court and in proceedings before the Convention institutions: reimbursement. Conclusion : respondent State to pay a specified sum to applicant (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes