Background
The four applicants participated in a notified demonstration around the Parliament of Catalonia on 14 and 15 June 2011. The protest, organised under the slogan “Let’s stop Parliament,” opposed proposed cuts to social spending. Demonstrators caused serious difficulties for members of parliament attempting to enter the building, and some MPs were insulted, assaulted, or subjected to objects or liquids thrown by unidentified participants.
The applicants themselves were not found to have committed violence. Their conduct consisted mainly of confronting or following MPs, chanting slogans, raising or extending their arms, and reproaching elected representatives. Spain’s Audiencia Nacional initially acquitted them, but the Supreme Court overturned that judgment and convicted them of an offence against State institutions, imposing three years’ imprisonment and three years’ disqualification from standing for election. The Constitutional Court upheld the convictions.
Execution of the prison sentences was suspended while pardon applications remained pending. In October 2024, the Audiencia Nacional declared the penalties time-barred. The applicants complained to the European Court of Human Rights that their convictions violated Articles 7, 10, and 11 of the Convention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that Spain violated Article 11, concerning freedom of peaceful assembly, read in the light of Article 10, concerning freedom of expression. It accepted that the convictions were prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights and freedoms of others. It also recognised the fundamental democratic interest in preserving Parliament’s effective operation and found that the disruption went beyond a minor disturbance.
Nevertheless, the three-year prison sentences were disproportionate. No specific violence, incitement to violence, or property damage was attributed to the applicants. They were neither organisers nor leaders of the demonstration, and the domestic courts did not find that they disobeyed police instructions or violated conditions imposed by the authorities. Although their conduct could justify some restriction or sanction, the domestic courts’ reasons were insufficient to support such severe custodial penalties.
The fact that the applicants never served the sentences did not change the result. For more than nine years, they remained uncertain whether the sentences would be enforced, and the convictions and severe penalties were capable of discouraging both the applicants and the public from demonstrating and participating in political debate. The Court found no need to examine the Article 7 complaint and made no award of just satisfaction because the applicants had not submitted an articulated and detailed claim.
Key Takeaways
- Protecting access to Parliament and its effective functioning may justify restrictions on demonstrations that cause serious disruption.
- A peaceful participant does not lose Article 11 protection merely because other demonstrators commit sporadic violence or other unlawful acts.
- Lengthy prison sentences require particularly strong justification when imposed for non-violent protest conduct; the applicants’ three-year terms were disproportionate.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes between a state’s authority to protect democratic institutions from obstruction and its obligation to impose proportionate penalties on individual protesters. Context may make otherwise limited conduct intimidating, but it does not permit courts to attribute other participants’ violence to peaceful demonstrators without adequate individual findings.
The decision also confirms that an unserved prison sentence can still violate the Convention when its severity and prolonged threat of enforcement create a chilling effect on political protest and public debate.