Onder 3.4 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 5 maart 2024

66. By reaching such a conclusion and not exercising the balancing test required under Article 11 § 2 of the Convention, the Supreme Court failed to give relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly, and thus failed to convincingly establish the necessity for such restrictions, which must be interpreted narrowly (see the relevant principles in paragraph 63 above). Given the above considerations, the Court finds that the requirements under Article 11 of the Convention were not met because the analysis of applicability of that provision – and, consequently, the assessment of the justification of the nterference – were not carried out at the domestic level in a manner consistent with the Convention and the Court’s case-law (compare Obote v. Russia , no. 58954/09, § 43, 19 November 2019, and Malofeyeva v. Russia, no. 36673/04, § 141, 30 May 2013; see also, mutatis mutandis, L. v. the Netherlands , no. 45582/99, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2004-IV).

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