Onder 3.3 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 maart 2024

55. The Court does not discern any reason in the present case to depart from these precedents. Even if the purpose of the gathering went beyond conveying disapproval of the eviction of the [kraakpand] squat and the participants also sought to prevent the lawful eviction of the squat (potentially amounting to “a form of coercion”; compare Drieman and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 33678/96, 4 May 2000), this did not, of itself, remove the applicants’ participation in it from the scope of protection of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. As noted above (see paragraph 52), such state of affairs might have implications for any assessment of “necessity” to be carried out under the second paragraph of this provision ( Kudrevičius and Others , cited above, § 97). The Court also reiterates that the question of whether a gathering falls within the autonomous concept of “peaceful assembly” in paragraph 1 of Article 11 and the scope of protection afforded by that provision is independent of whether that gathering was conducted in accordance with a procedure provided for by the domestic law (see Navalnyy , cited above, § 99), such as a duty of prior notification.

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/3c934c1970ec08ec5e758c3ad6f5e53f0a8c6b130ede02f6e348c56ee1edcd21 | shasum -a 256