Onder 3.4 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 maart 2024

65. Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the Supreme Court found that the appellate court did not err in law and was not incomprehensible in its ruling that there had been no demonstration within the meaning of the Public Assemblies Act as the aim of the gathering had been to seek confrontation and to (physically) prevent the eviction (see paragraph 20 above), adopting the position that Article 11 of the Convention was inapplicable as well. The Supreme Court essentially stopped its assessment at that point; it did not examine whether the applicants’ role in the gathering was in fact “peaceful” within the autonomous meaning given to that concept in the Court’s case-law (see Navalnyy , cited above, § 99).

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