Onder 8.16 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 7 juli 2026

“57. It is undisputed that the physical activity engaged in by the applicants fell within concept of a “peaceful assembly”, although the applicants interfered with the activities carried out by others, including the employees who continued working after the building closed to the public and the security staff, and they demanded to meet with the Minister of Justice. Thus, it cannot be said that they committed “any reprehensible act”, or demonstrated “physical conduct which deliberately obstructed the ordinary course of life and seriously disrupted activities carried out by others”, so that their behaviour was not protected by Article 11 (see, among others, Kudrevičius and Others, cited above, § 149, and Tuskia and Others, cited above, § 74). The Court therefore considers that the demonstration, viewed as a whole, was not of such a nature and degree as to exclude the applicants from the scope of protection under Article 11 of the Convention. Accordingly, their convictions constituted an interference with their right to freedom of assembly. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection in this respect (see paragraph 42 above).”

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/01118fed6432e237f5c8141a6946f8e293ad2d8fc1cfab213992a20e977c8a5b | shasum -a 256