Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG , Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr NORP PERSON , PERSON E. Sadigov and PERSON PERSON PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants who are all independent journalists or journalists who support the political opposition , decided to hold a demonstration in support of freedom of the media in GPE .

By a letter sent in DATE , the applicants informed ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) of their intention to hold a demonstration in the form of a march from FAC to a small square near the Heydar FAC in GPE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG authorised the applicants to organise a march from the Hazi FAC to FAC and then to assemble and continue demonstrating in FAC . The authorised time period for the demonstration was from TIME on DATE .

The applicants were not satisfied with the location proposed by the ORG because it was too distant from the city centre and at the time there were road works underway around FAC , making it hard for them to hold a demonstration there .

For the above reasons , and without formally notifying the ORG , the applicants changed the location of their demonstration to LOC in the city centre .

On DATE a total of CARDINAL to CARDINAL journalists ( including the applicants ) holding banners with various slogans gathered at LOC and attempted to hold a demonstration . However , TIME after the demonstration began , several police cars approached the park and TIME police officers from ORG began dispersing the demonstrators .

CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr Shahveled Namazov , were forcibly dragged into police cars and taken to Police Station No . CARDINAL of the Sabail District Police Office . They were held in the police station for TIME but were subsequently released .

On DATE the applicants brought an action against ORG claiming that they had been ill - treated by the police during the dispersal of the demonstration and that their rights of freedom of assembly and freedom of expression had been violated .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicants’ civil claim as they had failed to pay the court fees in the manner and amount required by law .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the applicants and upheld the first - instance court ’s inadmissibility decision . ORG found that the ORG original claim had not complied with the procedural requirements of LAW concerning the form and content of civil claims , and that the applicants had failed to attach any documentary evidence in support of their claim , apart from photocopies of several photographs .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . ORG decision was sent to the applicants on DATE .

On DATE the application was communicated to the respondent Government . On DATE the ORG submitted a friendly - settlement proposal within the framework of the proceedings before the ORG , and on DATE the ORG sent the proposal to the applicants .

At DATE , several articles were published in the NORP media concerning the Government ’s friendly - settlement proposal to the applicants . Some of the articles are described below .

On DATE an article was published on the website of the PERSON newspaper . The article was accompanied by CARDINAL photographs in which all of the applicants , except Mr PERSON and PERSON GPE , are present , together with other persons . The article was entitled “ The Government Offer MONEY to CARDINAL Journalists ” ( “ LOC CARDINAL jurnalistə QUANTITY avro təklif edir ” ) and read , in its relevant part , as follows :

“ ... The current situation is that the Government are ready to pay the MONEY in compensation that the journalists claim . The respondent party is trying to prevent the adoption of a new court judgment against GPE and the examination of the case before ORG by proposing a friendly settlement to the journalists . DATE , the applicant journalists , except for PERSON [ PERSON ] and PERSON [ GPE ] , met at the office of the PERSON newspaper and assessed the current situation . The common opinion of the participants in the discussion was that in comparison with the unlawfulness to which the journalists had been subjected the amount of the proposed compensation was low . Moreover , they concentrated on CARDINAL options for reaching a final decision . The first option is a conditional agreement . Thus , in that case the applicants would accept the friendly - settlement proposal on the condition that they obtained the punishment of the court judges and police officers who had used violence against them . In that case , the Government would eradicate the causes which created this situation . The second option is for the above - mentioned case to continue before ORG until the final stage .

The journalists also stated during the discussions that if there was a decision , it would be the first decision concerning LAW in respect of GPE . This is important for democracy and free speech in GPE ...

Following this interesting discussion , the journalists decided to discuss the issue again in DATE in the presence of the director of ORG , PERSON ... ”

Another article dated DATE , DATE , was published on the website of ORG . The article , entitled “ The Azerbaijani Government Propose Friendly Settlement to CARDINAL NORP ” ( “ Azərbaycan hakimiyyəti CARDINAL jurnalistə barışıq təklif edir ” ) , was written by PERSON . It was stated in the article that Mr Shahveled Namazov , CARDINAL of the applicants , had informed ORG that ORG had proposed a friendly settlement to the CARDINAL journalists that included compensation of QUANTITY . Mr ORG also stated that the journalists could not reach a consensus as some of them wanted to accept the ORG ’s proposal . He further continued as follows :

“ The common opinion was that we can not be satisfied solely with the compensation ; our right of assembly has been violated . Some of us are in favour of pursuing a judgment by ORG because such a judgment will become a precedent ” .

In the same article , another applicant , Mr PERSON , was also quoted . He stated that in their claim they had requested the punishment of the police officers who had used violence against them , as well as the punishment of the judges of the first - instance court who had dismissed their action . He continued as follows :

“ However , these assurances were not secured in the proposal by ORG ; if they were secured , it would be possible to withdraw the application ” .

On DATE an interview with CARDINAL of the CARDINAL representatives of the applicants before the ORG , Mr PERSON , was published on the website of ORG radio station . The article was entitled “ PERSON : ORG Decision May Positively Influence the Judicial System and Legislation of the Country ” ( “ PERSON : PERSON qərarı ölkədəki məhkəmə sisteminə və qanunvericiliyə müsbət təsir edə bilər ” ) . The relevant parts of the interview read as follows :

“ Question : Do the journalists agree with the friendly - settlement proposal ?

Answer : I , as a lawyer , informed each journalist of , and sent them , the ORG ’s proposal . They have to make clear their decision separately , as well as to decide together by discussing it .

Question : What do the Government propose ? Who are the applicant journalists ?

Answer : The applicants are the director of ORG , PERSON , the editor of the PERSON newspaper , PERSON [ GPE ] , the journalist PERSON [ PERSON ] , the editor - in - chief of the PERSON newspaper , PERSON , and reporters at that newspaper PERSON [ ORG ] , PERSON [ GPE ] , PERSON [ ORG ] and PERSON [ PERSON ] . Our claim was for MONEY for each applicant plus the payment of additional cost and expenses . The Government offered to pay the non - pecuniary damage claim in full , but did not offer to pay the court and legal costs .

Question : Would ORG adopt a judgment if there was no agreement between the journalists and the Government ?

Answer : If the applicants do not accept the ORG ’s offer , ORG will probably continue with its examination of the case . It is true that justification has to be given for why the friendly settlement was not accepted . The justification has to be accompanied by arguments . If the ORG considers that the justification is not supported by arguments , it could discontinue the case . It may strike the case out of the list and inform the applicants of the acceptance of the Government ’s proposal .

Question : The media writes that there is disagreement between the applicant journalists . Some of the applicants want to accept the ORG ’s proposal , other journalists will not accept the friendly - settlement proposal as the Government do not guarantee freedom of assembly . They seek the adoption of a judgment by ORG in order to have a judicial precedent . What do you think about this ?

Answer : Discussion of the friendly - settlement proposal in the media does not comply with the rules on confidentiality . On the other hand , if the victim journalists make the issue public , it is also their right . I have not yet received the final decision from the applicants ... ”

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicants informed ORG of their refusal to accept the ORG ’s friendly - settlement proposal .


Preliminary objections rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicants are relatives of sailors who lost their lives in a shipwreck .

On DATE the vessel Jan ORG sank in LOC . It belonged to the company Polskie PERSON , whose registered office is in GPE , and was operated by the company GPE , with its registered office in GPE . Of the CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew members on board , CARDINAL died in the shipwreck and CARDINAL survived .

Several commissions of inquiry were set up to establish the cause of the shipwreck .

The commission set up by the Prime Minister suspended its inquiry in DATE without producing a report .

The commission set up by ORG submitted a report in DATE in which it found that the shipwreck had been due to force majeure .

The special commission set up within ORG concluded in DATE that the owner of the vessel and the crew were jointly responsible .

ORG attached to ORG ( Izba Morska przy Sądzie Wojewódzkim ) instituted proceedings seeking to establish the cause of the shipwreck . The relatives of the crew members who had died took part in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG delivered its decision , attributing liability to the ship 's captain , its technical team , ORG , which had inspected the vessel before the disaster , and the NORP rescue services .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON przy PERSON ) , sitting in GPE , set aside the decision of DATE and referred the case to ORG for a fresh examination .

The Gdańsk Maritime Chamber , sitting in GPE , examined the case DATE and DATE . On DATE it gave a decision in which it held that the crew had been partly liable , that the vessel 's operator had been at fault for failing to undertake the necessary repair work , and that the natural elements had also played a part .

The operator , the ship 's owner , the representative of ORG and the other parties to the proceedings appealed . In a decision delivered on DATE and served on the parties on DATE , ORG partly upheld the finding of liability with regard to the operator . It also upheld the finding that certain acts of negligence on the part of the crew , in particular the captain and the chief officer , had contributed to the disaster , as had the fact that the rescue operation had not been properly coordinated .

The relevant passages of the decision read as follows :

page CARDINAL

“ The most likely cause of the capsize of the car and train ferry the Jan Heweliusz and of the death by drowning and hypothermia of CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew members and the disappearance of CARDINAL passengers and CARDINAL crew members was :

the fact that the ferry turned into the wind while unevenly ballasted ( towards the port side ) , resulting in the shifting of the ballast towards the port side ; violent gusts of wind on that side ; the shifting of the vehicles ' loads and the vehicles themselves to the port side ; the discharge of bilge water to the outside on the port side of the ferry . ”

page CARDINAL

“ The Jan Heweliusz left the port of Świnoujście at TIME on DATE , bound for the port of GPE , in an unseaworthy condition , as the safety requirements were not met in the following respects :

measures to stabilise the vessel in the event of an accident ;

measures to ensure that the rear door was watertight ;

NORP the securing of the vehicles to the deck in accordance with maritime best practice . ”

page CARDINAL

“ Irregularities have been found in the conduct of :

NORP the operator of the Jan Heweiusz , ORG , a limited liability company based in GPE , which allowed the ferry to be operated while in an unseaworthy condition owing to the damage sustained to the door on DATE in GPE , following which its class had been suspended and the safety certificate had ceased to be valid , in that it

( a ) NORP omitted to declare the ferry to FAC for an interim inspection and to ORG for immediate inspection ;

( b ) failed to take the agreed action to repair the rear door in the proper manner ;

the captain of the above - mentioned ferry , a Master Mariner ... who , on DATE , left the port of Świnoujście , bound for the port of GPE , while the ferry was in an unseaworthy condition , in that he

( a ) NORP omitted to declare the ferry to the FAC in GPE and later to FAC for an interim inspection following the damage sustained to the rear door on DATE in GPE , the suspension of class after the accident and the cessation of validity of the ship 's safety certificate ;

( b ) allowed the vessel to depart without the vehicles being secured to the deck , in spite of the gale warning that had been issued ;

NORP the chief officer , a Master Mariner ... who , on DATE , before the ferry left the port of Świnoujście bound for PERSON , and despite the issuing of a gale warning , did not supervise the securing of the vehicles to the deck before the ferry left port . ”

page CARDINAL

“ The lack of effectiveness of the rescue operation was the result of

NORP the clothing of the passengers and some crew members , which did not protect them against hypothermia ;

the inadequate training of the crew in the use of the life - saving equipment . ”

page CARDINAL

“ ... In the ORG 's view , the evidence cited demonstrates that

( ii ) the cargo was not secured before the vessel left dock despite the gale warning issued by the meteorological office ... ”

pages CARDINAL - CARDINAL

“ ... The causes of the vessel 's having turned into the wind can only be established with a high degree of probability ; the possibility that the persons steering the ferry failed to observe the rules can not be discounted ... ”

page CARDINAL

“ ... The rescue operation revealed that , in a situation of the utmost danger , some members of the crew did not know how to use the lifejackets ... ”

The maritime chambers were introduced into the NORP legal system by an LAW which provided for the establishment of chambers at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction , attached to the courts and with jurisdiction “ in cases relating to maritime incidents and accidents at sea ” . The maritime chambers were considered as maritime administrative bodies .

LAW of DATE incorporated most of the rules laid down in the DATE Act and transferred powers to them which had previously been vested in the courts . Its relevant provisions read :

“ The maritime chambers shall be composed of a president , CARDINAL or more vicepresidents and lay members . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The president and vicepresident shall be appointed and removed from office by the Minister of ORG , in agreement with the Minister of Transport and Maritime Affairs , from among the judges of the ordinary courts who have knowledge of the maritime issues dealt with in the cases before the maritime chambers .

( CARDINAL ) The other members [ pracownicy ] of the maritime chambers shall be recruited and dismissed by the president of the chamber concerned . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The presidents and vicepresidents of the maritime chambers shall retain their judicial posts and , unless the law stipulates otherwise , the rights and duties set out in the legislation applicable to judges .

( CARDINAL ) The status of the other members of the maritime chambers shall be governed by the legislation governing officials of ORG administrative bodies . ”

“ The Minister of ORG , in agreement with the Minister of Transport and Maritime Affairs , shall determine , by decree , the extent of the participation of the presidents and vicepresidents of the maritime chambers in the activities of the courts , taking account of the extent of their involvement in the maritime chambers and the need to have working professional judges involved in the administration of justice . ”

“ Subject to contrary provisions of the present Act , the provisions of LAW shall apply to proceedings in cases before the maritime chambers concerning accidents at sea . ”

“ Once a case has been brought before the maritime chamber , it shall be investigated by the president or the vicepresident either directly or through the intermediary of the DATE 's office . ”

“ The investigation shall be aimed at establishing the sequence of events and the causes and circumstances of the accident by gathering the necessary information and preserving the evidence . ”

“ After the decision has been signed by the members of the bench who decided the case , the president shall deliver the decision , citing the main grounds . The grounds of the decision shall then be set down in writing ... ”

“ The decision and the reasons shall be communicated to the Minister of Transport and Maritime Affairs , his or her deputy , the maritime department concerned and the individuals concerned . In the cases referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , they shall also be communicated to ORG . ”

The regulations adopted by ORG on DATE incorporated the rules set down in the CARDINAL Act . However , no express provisions were laid down concerning appeals to the maritime appeals chambers against decisions given by the maritime chambers at first instance . The chief task of the maritime chambers remains the determination of cases concerning maritime incidents and accidents at sea . Under the terms of the DATE regulations , in cases relating to accidents at sea not governed by LAW , the rules of ordinary law and LAW apply .

On DATE a preliminary question was referred to ORG in a different case from the one before the ORG , concerning the possibility of an appeal on points of law against a decision given by a maritime appeals chamber . ORG replied that no such possibility existed ( IIICZP CARDINAL/CARDINAL OSNC CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL ) . It observed that there had been a longrunning debate among NORP commentators on the legal status of the maritime chambers , which were sometimes regarded as administrative bodies and sometimes as judicial bodies .

On DATE the Government communicated to the ORG a bill on maritime chambers , indicating that it would be put before ORG for approval in DATE , before being tabled in the PERSON .

The Act of DATE was published in ORG on DATE . It provides a detailed definition of maritime disasters , listing in detail the conduct and facts falling within the remit of the maritime chambers . The only possibility of appeal is with ORG against decisions of the maritime appeals chamber withdrawing navigation rights . Finally , it includes a new chapter on the procedure for enforcing decisions of the maritime chambers concerning the withdrawal of navigation rights .

However , the new legislation has not made provision for an appeal on points of law against decisions of the maritime appeals chambers and has not amended the procedure for appointing and removing from office the presidents and vicepresidents of the maritime chambers .


Violation of P1-3;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with manic depression . On DATE he was placed under partial guardianship . Although this measure was based on LAW which deals with the pecuniary and certain personal relations of citizens ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it nevertheless also attracted the application of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to the applicant , excluding him from the right to vote . In the underlying court decision it was noted that he took care of himself adequately but sometimes wasted money in an irresponsible fashion and was occasionally aggressive . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the applicant realised that he had been omitted from the electoral register drawn up in view of the upcoming legislative elections . His complaint to ORG was to no avail .

The applicant further complained to ORG . On DATE this court dismissed his case . It observed that , under LAW ) of the LAW , those under guardianship could not participate in elections . This decision was served on the applicant 's representative on DATE .

In the meantime , legislative elections took place on CARDINAL and DATE , in which the applicant could not participate .

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides inter alia that persons placed under total or partial guardianship do not have a right to vote .

The Civil Code provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) This LAW regulates the pecuniary and certain personal relations of citizens ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Persons of legal age may be placed under partial guardianship by a court if their faculties necessary to conduct their affairs are DATE owing to their mental state , unsound mind or pathological addiction – permanently or recurrently diminished to a great extent in general or in relation to certain groups of matters .

( CARDINAL ) If the limitation of discretionary ability is only partial , the person under guardianship may make valid legal statements independently in all matters in relation to which the court did not limit his / her capacity in its decision .

( CARDINAL ) The court may limit the full capacity of a person placed under guardianship in particular in respect of the following groups of matters :

i. requests of social security , social and unemployment benefits and disposition over such benefits or over income deriving from employment ... exceeding the amount defined in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) c ) of section CARDINAL ;

ii . right of disposition concerning moveable and real property ;

iii . making certain legal statements in family law matters , namely :

a ) legal statements concerning matrimonial property rights or property rights related to a registered partnership ,

b ) making statements in relation to the establishment of parentage ,

c ) defining the name of one 's child and its alteration ,

d ) giving consent to the adoption of one 's child ;

iv . taking pecuniary decisions in relation to maintenance obligations ;

v. making legal statements in relation to residential leases ( conclusion and termination of the contract ) ;

vi . inheritance matters ;

vii . NORP legal statements concerning placement in an in - house social institution ;

viii . disposing of rights related to health services ;

ix . determination of place of residence . ”

Act no . C of DATE on Election Procedure provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In order to establish the right to vote , the organs listed under points a)-c ) keep informed the central agency , managing the register of citizens ' personal data and addresses , of the changes occurring in the data , specified in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , of ... citizens of legal age without the right to vote , as follows :

a ) the office of guardians ... on placement under guardianship limiting or excluding legal capacity , and on the termination of guardianship , ...

( CARDINAL ) The communication described under paragraph ( CARDINAL ) includes the citizen 's :

a ) first and last name ( for women , also maiden name ) ,

b ) personal identification number ,

c ) the reason for exclusion from the exercise of voting rights , its beginning date and expected end date . ”

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ( the “ CRPD ” ) , which was ratified by GPE on DATE , provides as follows :

... “ Persons with disabilities include those who have long - term physical , mental , intellectual or sensory impairments which , in interaction with various barriers , may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others . ”

“ CARDINAL . GPE Parties reaffirm that persons with disabilities have the right to recognition everywhere as persons before the law .

GPE Parties shall recognize that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life .

GPE Parties shall take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they may require in exercising their legal capacity .

GPE Parties shall ensure that all measures that relate to the exercise of legal capacity provide for appropriate and effective safeguards to prevent abuse in accordance with international human rights law . Such safeguards shall ensure that measures relating to the exercise of legal capacity respect the rights , will and preferences of the person , are free of conflict of interest and undue influence , are proportional and tailored to the person 's circumstances , apply for the shortest time possible and are subject to regular review by a competent , independent and impartial authority or judicial body . The safeguards shall be proportional to the degree to which such measures affect the person 's rights and interests . ... ”

“ GPE Parties shall guarantee to persons with disabilities political rights and the opportunity to enjoy them on an equal basis with others , and shall undertake to :

a. Ensure that persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in political and public life on an equal basis with others , directly or through freely chosen representatives , including the right and opportunity for persons with disabilities to vote and be elected , inter alia , by :

i. Ensuring that voting procedures , facilities and materials are appropriate , accessible and easy to understand and use ;

ii . Protecting the right of persons with disabilities to vote by secret ballot in elections and public referendums without intimidation , and to stand for elections , to effectively hold office and perform all public functions at all levels of government , facilitating the use of assistive and new technologies where appropriate ;

iii . Guaranteeing the free expression of the will of persons with disabilities as electors and to this end , where necessary , at their request , allowing assistance in voting by a person of their own choice ;

b. Promote actively an environment in which persons with disabilities can effectively and fully participate in the conduct of public affairs , without discrimination and on an equal basis with others , and encourage their participation in public affairs , including :

i. Participation in non - governmental organizations and associations concerned with the public and political life of the country , and in the activities and administration of political parties ;

ii . Forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with disabilities at international , national , regional and local levels . ”

ORG ( adopted on DATE ) ( “ Recommendation R(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ” ) provides as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . NORP In particular , a measure of protection should not automatically deprive the person concerned of the right to vote , or to make a will , or to consent or refuse consent to any intervention in the health field , or to make other decisions of a personal character at any time when his or her capacity permits him or her to do so . ”

Opinion no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG ) on LAW ( “ Opinion no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) provides as follows :

“ i. provision may be made for depriving individuals of their right to vote and to be elected , but only subject to the following cumulative conditions :

ii . it must be provided for by law ;

iii . the proportionality principle must be observed ; conditions for depriving individuals of the right to stand for election may be less strict than for disenfranchising them ;

iv . The deprivation must be based on mental incapacity or a criminal conviction for a serious offence .

v. Furthermore , the withdrawal of political rights or finding of mental incapacity may only be imposed by express decision of a court of law . ”

ORG R(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG adopted on DATE ) ( “ Recommendation R(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ” ) provides as follows :

“ ... iii . to ensure that no person with a disability is excluded from the right to vote or to stand for election on the basis of her / his disability ; ... ”


Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

NORP The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

NORP The applicant is the chairperson of ORG ( ORG gegen DATE “ the Association ” ) , an association for the protection of animals .

On DATE the applicant , as chairperson of the ORG , notified , in accordance with LAW , ORG ) that the ORG intended to hold an assembly , namely to set up a public information booth in the pedestrian zone in GPE on DATE between TIME and TIME and on DATE between TIME and TIME in order to inform people of the suffering of fur - bearing animals . He indicated that he expected that CARDINAL people would man the booth and added that the following material would be used : a display of posters , banners , leaflets , tables , an electricity generator , a petition on which signatures would be gathered , a video projector , a projection screen and a car ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON , ORG , GPE , ORG ) .

On DATE the ORG set up its information booth in the city of GPE . It set up a table with a television screen and a video projector fed by an electric generator and showed a documentary on the suffering of fur - bearing animals used for scientific experiments and for the production of fur , while CARDINAL or CARDINAL people belonging to the ORG distributed leaflets . Several people held banners and chanted slogans . Passers - by were able to sign a petition in support of the ORG ’s stance and some of them entered into discussions with the animal rights activists .

Subsequently , on DATE , ORG issued a penal order against the applicant in the amount of CARDINAL ( ORG ) , finding that the ORG had not requested prior authorisation by the competent authority under section CARDINAL of ORG – hereinafter “ the GPE ” ) . As no such permit had been obtained from ORG , the applicant as the person responsible for the ORG had committed an administrative offence .

On DATE ORG ( Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat ) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant , holding that pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Roads Act the use of streets for any other purpose than their prescribed and intended one required permission , irrespective of whether setting up the information booth had itself been permitted under LAW . It further held that setting up the information booth could not be considered as an “ assembly ” within the ordinary meaning of LAW , as its main purpose had been to inform people rather than getting people together for a common purpose .

Thereupon the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG on DATE , complaining of a violation of the right to peaceful assembly under LAW . In his opinion , section CARDINAL of LAW did not apply to setting up an information booth .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . ORG found that setting up the information booth qualified as an event protected by LAW Staatsgrundgesetz ) concerning freedom of assembly and association . The right to peaceful assembly was guaranteed by LAW and specified by LAW ) and any breach of that Act therefore constituted a violation of the underlying fundamental right . It found that the act of setting up the information booth in question fell within the scope of LAW .

The Assembly Act provided that an assembly only had to be notified to the authorities and did not require prior authorisation . Therefore , any system requiring prior authorisation of an assembly was in principle inconsistent with the right to peaceful assembly and unconstitutional . The question was therefore whether the requirements of section QUANTITY of LAW , which required permission for the special use of a road , were in accordance with these provisions of constitutional law . In ORG view , ORG had been bound to interpret LOC in conformity with LAW ( verfassungskonforme Interpretation ) and had therefore been obliged to issue the relevant permission . This meant that section DATE of LAW was constitutional .

As regards whether fining the applicant for having failed to ask for a permit under section CARDINAL of LAW had violated the applicant ’s rights under LAW , the Constitutional Court found that there had been no such breach given that section CARDINAL of LAW was in conformity with LAW ; ORG had been obliged by constitutional law to deliver the relevant permission ; and the fine imposed on the applicant had been moderate .

Section CARDINAL of the Roads Act reads , insofar as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any use of the road ... for any other purpose than it was intended for requires the explicit permission of ORG . ... ”

Section QUANTITY of the Roads Act reads , insofar as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A breach of section ... DATE ... is an administrative offence liable to be punished by the ORG with a fine of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL or with imprisonment in default [ of payment ] of DATE . Fines levied shall be passed on to ORG and used for road maintenance purposes . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Assembly Act reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) PERSON wants to hold a public assembly where access is not restricted to invited guests only shall notify the [ relevant ] authority in writing at least TIME before the intended event specifying its purpose , the place and the time of the assembly . The notification must reach the authority at latest TIME before the time of the assembly .

( CARDINAL ) Upon request the authority must immediately issue a certificate [ attesting to ] the notification of the assembly . ORG is not subject to any fee . ”