Restriction Criteria for the Freedom of Assembly in the Procedure of the European Court of Human Rights

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 student of university of judicial science and administrative services

2 assist prof. in the department of public and international law of university of judicial science and administrative services

10.22099/jls.2021.37867.3985

Abstract

Abstract
The right to freedom of assembly has been emphasized in international instruments as a human right. Findings of international human rights tribunals have complemented the international Instruments as judicial procedure. No international human rights tribunal on a global scale has been established among the international tribunals. However, among the international tribunals on a regional scale, some courts have established procedures on freedom of assembly. This article through a descriptive-analytical method seeks to examine restriction criteria for the freedom of assembly in the procedure of European Court of Human Rights. The research hypothesis in the article is that the European Court of Human Rights has accepted the minimum restrictions on freedom of assembly by states by meeting criteria higher than those set out in Article 11 of the Convention. The article after elaborating the judicial Procedure of this Court concludes that: First, national security considerations in exceptional circumstances can restrict freedom of assembly; Second, the freedom of assembly has priority over reasonable violation of public order; Third, the freedom of assembly should not restrict the rights and freedoms of other civilians (except as normal); Forth, states should tolerate organizers of associations.

Keywords

References

Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado (1978) The Spanish Constitution, Madrid, Catálogo de Publicaciones de la Administración General del Estado publicacionesoficiales.boe.es Conde, Victor (2004) A Handbook of International Human Rights Terminology, London. University of Nebraska Press. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and the Federal Office of Justice, (2020) Germany's Constitution of 1949 with Amendments through 2012, Berlin, Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and the Federal Office of Justice Della Mirandola, P. (2012) Oration on The Dignity of Man: A New Ttranslation and Commentary, Cambridge University Press.‏ Rohde, Stephen F. (2009) Freedom of Assembly, New York: Infobase Publishing.‏ Arnheim, Michael, & Arnheim, Michael TW. (2004) The Handbook of Human Rights Law: An Accessible Approach to the Issues and Principles, London: Kogan Page Limited.‏ Douzinas, Costas & Gearty, Conor (eds.). (2014) The Meanings of Rights: The Philosophy and Social Theory of Human Rights, Cambridge University Press.‏ Sally, Wehmeier (2010) Oxford Advanced Learner`s Dictionary, New York: Oxford University Press. Garner, Bryan (1394) Black Law Dictionary, Tehran: Mizan. Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights European Court of Human Rights, CASE OF HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 39919/07 and 14 others – see appended list ( European Court of Human Rights,Chernega and Others/et autres – Ukraine, 74768/10, Judgment/Arrêt 18.6.2019 [Section IV] European Court of Human Rights,Zülküf Murat Kahraman – Turkey/Turquie, 65808/10, Judgment/Arrêt 16.7.2019 [Section II] European Court of Human Rights,Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania - 37553/05 Judgment 26.11.2013 [Section II] European Court of Human Rights, Information Note on the Court’s case-law, No. 180 December 2014 Navalnyy and Yashin v. Russia - 76204/11 Judgment 4.12.2014 [Section I] European Court of Human Rights,Bukta and Others v. Hungary - 25691/04 Judgment 17.7.2007 [Section II] European Court of Human Rights,Gülcü v. Turkey - 17526/10 Judgment 19.1.2016 [Section II] European Court of Human Rights,Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, 23086/08, judgment 20.9.2018 [Section I] European Court of Human Rights,Mushegh Saghatelyan v. Armenia, 23086/08, judgment 20.9.2018 [Section I] European Court of Human Rights, Ognevenko – Russia/Russie, 44873/09, judgment/ arrêt 20.11.2018 [Section III] European Court of Human Rights, CASE OF HASANOV AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN (Applications nos. 39919/07 and 14 others) European Court of Human Rights, Case of Oya Ataman V. Turkey, Application No. 74552/01, Judgment, 5 December 2006. European Court of Human Rights, CASE OF YILMAZ YILDIZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 4524/06) European Court of Human Rights, CASE OF SCHWABE AND M.G. v. GERMANY Applications nos. 8080/08 and 8577/08 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Steel and Others V. The United Kingdom, Application No. 67/1997/851/1058, Judgment, 23 September 1998 Information Note on the Court’s case-law 223, November 2018, Navalnyy v. Russia [GC], nos. 29580/12 and 4 others, 15 November 2018 INFORMATION NOTE 212, Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights,2017 NOVEMBER, Işıkırık v. Turkey - 41226/09 Judgment 14.11.2017 [Section II] Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 117 Barraco v. France - 31684/05 Judgment 5.3.2009 [Section V] Information Note on the Court’s case-law, No.115 January2009, Samüt Karabulut v. Turkey, no. 16999/04, § 35, 27 January 2009, with further references) Information Note on the Court’s case-law,No. 192 January 2016, Frumkin v. Russia - 74568/12 Judgment 5.1.2016 [Section III] Information Note on the Court’s case-law, No. 193 February 2016, Huseynli and Others v. Azerbaijan - 67360/11,67964/11 and 69379/11 Judgment 11.2.2016 [Section V] INFORMATION NOTE 222, Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights,2018 OCTOBER, Tuskia and Others/et autres – Georgia/Géorgie, 14237/07, judgment/arrêt 11.10.2018 [Section V] Information Note on the Court’s case-law, No. 148 January 2012, CASE OF PATYI v. HUNGARY (Application no. 35127/08

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics