Menu
ALT Advisory | Public Interest Advisory Services
  • Home
  • Services
    • Advisory
      • Project management // strategy
      • Network development
      • Human rights impact assessments
      • Law reform // advocacy
      • Regulatory compliance // risk
        • > POPIA Compliance
        • > GDPR Compliance
      • Privacy by design
    • Analysis
      • Legal // policy analysis
      • Country trends analysis
      • Regional // international trends analysis
      • Reviews // vetting
      • Treaty body reporting
    • Research
      • Commissioned research reports
      • Comparative legal research // mapping
      • Community engagement // public participation
      • Development of legal instruments
      • Field research // social surveys
    • Training
      • Toolkits // training manuals
      • Constitutional literacy
      • Information security
      • Capacity-building workshops
      • Online platforms // courses
      • Organisational policies
  • Practice Areas
    • Public Law
      • Constitutional law // democratic institutions
      • International law // multi-stakeholder engagement
      • Activism // right to protest
      • Corporate accountability
      • Electoral integrity // right to vote
      • Eliminating trade in harmful technologies
      • Equality // inclusion
      • Labour migration governance
      • Environmental law // climate change
    • Information Rights
      • Internet governance
      • Free expression online
      • Press freedom // protected disclosures
      • Disabling disinformation
      • Online harms reduction
      • Open data // access to knowledge
      • Internet access
      • Digital equity
    • Data Privacy
      • Protection of personal information
      • Responsible data collection
      • Information security // cybercrimes
      • Automated decision-making // profiling
      • Biometrics // facial recognition
      • Responsible data trade
      • Surveillance technologies
    • Emergent Tech // Innovation
      • Algorithmic bias
      • AI // robotics
      • Blockchain // smart contracts
      • Copyright online
      • Smart cities // the Internet of Things
      • Future of work
  • Special Projects
    • ALT AI
    • Data Protection Africa
    • Democracy 2.0
    • Internet in Schools
  • About
    • About
      • About Us
      • Our Work
      • Vision
      • Mission
      • Empowerment
    • People
      • Avani Singh
      • Michael Power
      • Tina Power
      • Tara Davis
      • S’lindile Khumalo
      • Jessie Rashid
      • Kwazi Nwana
      • Dércio Tsandzana
      • Wendy Trott
    • Opportunities
      • Vacancies
      • Internships
      • Collaboration
    • Policies
      • Accessibility
      • Best Practices
      • Non-discrimination
      • Open Source
      • Privacy
  • Connect
Close Menu
Case Note 2020
16 Jan 2019

European Court holds conviction for public demonstration violates right to freedom of expression

Advisory Notes, Case Notes European Convention on Human Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Freedom of Expression

Mătăsaru v Republic of Moldova, Application Nos. 69714/16 and 71685/16

Date of judgment: 15 January 2019

Court: European Court of Human Rights, Second Section


On 15 January 2019, the European Court of Human Rights (European Court) held that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression under article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (European Convention) had been violated. The applicant had been convicted of hooliganism under the domestic law and given a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment. The applicant’s conviction arose from a demonstration that he had conducted in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office, involving a sculpture of an erect penis with a picture of the face of a high-ranking politician attached to its head; and another sculpture of a vulva with pictures of several high‑ranking prosecutors between the labia.

Background

The applicant has been involved in numerous protests against alleged acts of corruption and abuse committed by police officers, prosecutors and judges, and had himself been the victim of police abuse, ill-treatment and prosecutorial inaction. Each year during the professional holiday of the prosecutors or the police, he staged protests involving live animals, toilets, caricatures and masks.

On 29 January 2013, the applicant conducted a demonstration in front of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The aim of the protest was to draw public attention to the corruption and the control exercised by politicians over the Prosecutor General’s Office. The applicant installed two wooden sculptures on the stairs of the Prosecutor General’s Office: the first sculpture, which measured two metres, represented an erect penis with a picture of the face of a high-ranking politician attached to its head; and the second sculpture represented a vulva with pictures of several high‑ranking prosecutors between the labia. The applicant also inflated balloons in the form of male genitals and attached them to nearby trees.

Approximately an hour after the demonstration began, the police removed the sculptures and took the applicant to a police station. The applicant was charged with the criminal offence of hooliganism. In March 2015, the applicant was found guilty as charged, and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment (suspended for three years). In deciding on the sanction, the court considered, amongst other things, that the applicant had previously been sanctioned with fines for similar deeds; that the applicant’s deeds had been immoral because he had exposed obscene sculptures in a public place where they could be seen by anyone, including children; and that prosecution witnesses had testified that they considered the sculptures to be indecent and obscene. In the court’s view, assimilating public officials with genitals went beyond the acceptable limits of criticism in a democratic society, and the demonstration was therefore not protected under article 10 of the European Convention.

Judgment of the European Court

Before the European Court, the applicant argued that his criminal conviction amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression. The applicant argued further that the interference had not been prescribed by law because article 287 of the domestic Criminal Code had not been applicable to his situation, and that the interference had not been necessary in a democratic society. Article 287, which deals with the offence of hooliganism, provides that: “Hooliganism, meaning deliberate actions grossly violating public order, involving violence or threats of violence or resistance to authorities’ representatives or to other persons who suppress such actions as well as actions that by their content are distinguished by an excessive cynicism or impudence, shall be punished by a fine … or by community service for 180 to 240 hours or by imprisonment for up to 3 years.”

In assessing the merits of the case, the European Court reiterated that freedom of expression –

constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, indeed one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the self-fulfilment of the individual. … [I]t is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any section of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.

The European Court accepted that the applicant’s conviction was an interference with his right to freedom of expression, and that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others. The judgment of the European Court therefore hinged on whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society. This required the European Court to determine whether the interference corresponded to a pressing social need, whether it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and whether the reasons given by the national authorities to justify the interference were relevant and sufficient.

In this regard, the European Court held that the domestic court had failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise of the different interests involved, and imposed a very heavy sanction on the applicant in the form of a suspended prison sentence. According the European Court, the circumstances of the case presented no justification whatsoever for the imposition of a prison sentence. As stated in the judgment: “Such a sanction, by its very nature, not only had negative repercussions on the applicant but it could also have a serious chilling effect on other persons and discourage them from exercising their freedom of expression. The fact that the sentence was suspended does not alter that conclusion”.

Accordingly, the European Court held that the criminal sanction imposed on the applicant was “manifestly disproportionate in its nature and severity to the legitimate aim pursued by the domestic authorities”, and that the domestic courts went beyond what would have amounted to a necessary restriction on the applicant’s freedom of expression. The European Court therefore held that there had been a violation of article 10 of the European Convention.

Order of the European Court

In the result, the European Court made the following order:

“For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

1. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the applications admissible;

3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;

4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant;

5. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.”

The full judgment is accessible here.

Please note: The information contained in this note is for general guidance on matters of interest, and does not constitute legal advice. For any enquiries, please contact us at [email protected].

Public participation process on General Comment 21 on the Right to Peaceful Assembly European Commission publishes Draft Artificial Intelligence Ethics Guidelines

Related Posts

Advisory 2020

Advisory Notes

UN issues recommendations on artificial intelligence and racial profiling by law enforcement

Advisory 2020

Advisory Notes

International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women

Advisory 2020

Advisory Notes

South African regulator publishes draft declaration on crypto assets

Latest Advisory Notes

  • Advisory 2020UN issues recommendations on artificial intelligence and racial profiling by law enforcement
    30 Nov 2020
  • Advisory 2020International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women
    25 Nov 2020
  • Advisory 2020South African regulator publishes draft declaration on crypto assets
    23 Nov 2020
  • Advisory 2020Italian data protection authority fines Vodafone for “aggressive telemarketing practices”
    18 Nov 2020
Back To Top
ALT Advisory | Public Interest Advisory Services
  • Accessibility
  • Ethical Practices
  • Legal
  • Non-discrimination
  • Opportunities
  • Privacy
  • Sitemap

Web development with ❤️ by:

© 2017-2021 Applied Law & Technology (Pty) Ltd (t/a ALT Advisory) is a private company registered in the Republic of South Africa (2017/145368/07). All rights reserved.
If you're still reading this you must be bored. Come and visit us and we'll have a cup of coffee.
Our website uses cookies to improve your experience but we are fully committed to respecting your privacy. ACCEPT COOKIE SETTINGS PRIVACY POLICY
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are as essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Non-necessary

Non-Necessary cookies may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and are used specifically to collect data via Google Analytics. None of the data collected constitutes personally identifiable information.

COVID-19: Level 3 Advisory

 

Level 3 status: Our offices are partially open and we’re fully available online.

As a result of the implementation of the Level 3 Regulations on 28 December 2020, our physical offices are partially open for necessary and essential matters and we are fully available remotely. We can be contacted on +2711 268 6881 or at [email protected] for pre-existing and new matters. All necessary office protocols have been implemented. We hope that everyone continues to stay safe during this time and please visit https://sacoronavirus.co.za for more information.