20 May Fine for protesting against mining of precious metals at the UNESCO World Heritage Site has led to a violation of the Convention

In the case of Bumbeș v. Romania (application no. 18079/15, 03.05.2022) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) interpreted in the light of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the fining of Mr Bumbeș for breaching certain norms of social coexistence and the public order and peace (Law no. 61/1991) while taking part in a protest against proposed gold- and silver-mining activity in the Roșia Montană area, an area in north-western Romania which has since been named a UNESCO world heritage site. He along with three others had handcuffed themselves to one of the entrance barriers of the main Government building and displayed signs.

The Court reiterated that freedom of expression constituted one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, which included not only the ideas expressed, but also how they are expressed. Article 11, however, only protected the right to peaceful protest. It stated that freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly were closely linked in this case.

The parties disagreed as to whether the fine had constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. The Court held that there had been an interference, given that the fine had not just concerned his conduct, but his attempt to spread a message.

The Court reiterated that its power to review compliance with domestic law was limited and so it would just examine whether the effects of the domestic courts’ interpretation had been compatible with the Convention, furthermore ruling that the two laws in question were complementary and could be read in conjunction with each other. The Court observed that by virtue of domastic laws, any public gathering without prior notification could be declared unlawful. That clearly included the applicant’s protest. The Court was also satisfied that the legitimate aim of preventing public disorder had informed the relevant fine in this case.

It determined that the actions of the applicant and his fellow protestors had been to draw the attention of the public and officials to the Roșia Montană mining project, which had been of general interest. There was little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political speech on questions of public interest. The applicant had been given little time to express his views, and the courts had dealt with the matter as a prior-notification question principally, and had not examined the actual disruption the applicant had caused and thus had not balanced the right to freedom of expression with the need to maintain public order. 

Lastly, the Court stated that the fine imposed had had a chilling effect on public speech. Given the above, the Court ruled that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, leading to a violation of Article 10 interpreted in the light of Article 1 of the Convention. 

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights