The European Court of Human Rights has found that Switzerland violated Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights after a woman who organised a women’s rights demonstration in Geneva was fined for allegedly failing to comply with conditions attached to the event authorisation.
The applicant, a Swiss national born in 1994, had organised a night-time demonstration in Geneva on International Women’s Day in 2019 on behalf of a collective of which she was a member. As the designated organiser, she had been informed that she would be personally liable for any failure to comply with the conditions governing the event.
The demonstration, which attracted around 1,000 participants, took place on 8 March 2019. The following day, police accused the applicant of several failings, including inadequate supervision by the security team established for the demonstration, graffiti on shop windows, the use of fireworks and an attempt by participants to deviate from the authorised route.
The applicant disputed the allegations, maintaining that only a “gerb” firework had been used without her knowledge and that any deviation from the route occurred despite instructions issued by her and the security team. She also noted that no arrests had been made during the protest.
She was nevertheless convicted for failing to comply with the conditions imposed under the Geneva Public Events Act and ordered to pay a fine, with the possibility of two days’ imprisonment in default of payment, together with court costs. Her attempts to challenge the decision before the Geneva Court of Justice and the Swiss Federal Supreme Court were unsuccessful.
Before the Strasbourg court, the applicant argued that her conviction infringed her rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. The Court examined the complaint under Article 11.
The Court observed that the demonstration had been peaceful and known to the authorities in advance, allowing them to make appropriate arrangements to maintain public order and safety. It further noted that the conduct of some demonstrators, while disorderly, had not caused significant disruption to daily life or amounted to violent or reprehensible behaviour.
Importantly, the applicant herself had not been accused of participating in, encouraging or orchestrating any unlawful acts. The domestic courts had instead held her responsible on the basis that she and her security team had failed to react effectively to the conduct of others.
The Strasbourg court considered this reasoning problematic, emphasising that an organiser could not automatically be held liable for the actions of participants. It also criticised the domestic courts for failing to address the applicant’s arguments that some alleged misconduct had not been clearly unlawful under domestic law and that she had actively attempted to stop other actions, including graffiti and deviations from the route.
The Court further criticised the refusal to hear testimony from witnesses proposed by the applicant, particularly members of the security team whose evidence was directly relevant to assessing whether appropriate measures had been taken during the demonstration. The domestic courts had instead relied almost exclusively on police findings without adequately addressing the applicant’s submissions.
The Court noted that the police had been present throughout the protest and that participants had complied with calls to restore order, with no arrests ultimately made. In that context, the fact that the organiser had been “overwhelmed by the burden” of supervising the event could not itself amount to reprehensible conduct.
The conviction also had wider consequences beyond the financial penalty, including the temporary refusal of a certificate of good behaviour required for the applicant’s employment as a teacher. The Court accepted that the sanction risked producing a chilling effect on the exercise of freedom of assembly, noting that the applicant had subsequently ceased organising demonstrations.
The Court concluded that the Swiss authorities had failed to strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to freedom of assembly and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Given the peaceful nature of the protest and the absence of significant disruption or danger, the interference with the applicant’s rights was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society.
Accordingly, the Court found a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.
Click here to read the judgment