Arrest and conviction of applicants at an Amsterdam squat protest deemed unjustified by the European Court of Human Rights

22-11-2023

Sofía Medina Sánchez 

International Justice and Human Rights Researcher 

Global Human Rights Defence 

On the 21st of November, the European Court of Human Rights issued its Chamber judgement in the case of Laurijsen and Others v. the Netherlands, holding that there had been a violation of the freedom of assembly and association (Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights). 

The case revolved around a demonstration opposing the eviction of a squat at Passeerdersgracht in Amsterdam. The applicants faced arrest for obstructing the road in front of and around the squat, leading to charges of disturbing public order and non-compliance with a police order to disperse—actions prohibited by the municipal by-law (Algemene Plaatselijke Verordening). The Regional Court acquitted and discharged them in part, contending that the local regulation didn’t apply, as the protest fell under the scope of the Public Assemblies Act (Wet openbare manifestaties). However, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court disagreed, asserting that the protest’s non-peaceful nature, with the initial intent to confront the police and physically impede the squat’s clearance, excluded it from the protective scope of the Public Assemblies Act and the Convention. Consequently, each applicant received a total fine of 100 euros.

The applicants alleged that the dispersal of the assembly, along with their subsequent arrest, deprivation of liberty, and criminal conviction, unjustly violated their right to freedom of peaceful assembly, as protected by Article 11 of the Convention. They asserted that the gathering qualified as a "peaceful assembly" under Article 11, and without an order from the Mayor of Amsterdam, as required by the Public Assemblies Act, the police intervention, arrest, and subsequent conviction had no legal basis. Additionally, they contended that the interference was disproportionate.

The Court considered that it was not enough to remove the protection of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly that the goal of the demonstration was to prevent the eviction of Schijnheilig squat. Moreover, it highlighted that the applicants had not been part of the group of protesters who had been arrested on grounds of violent behaviour. The court has recognised in its jurisprudence that Article 11 protects peaceful protesters even in demonstrations which have become violent through the acts of others. Given that the applicants were not involved themselves in any violent behaviour during the protest, they were afforded the protection of Article 11 and thus, there had been an interference in their right through their arrest, prosecution, and conviction. 

Furthermore, the Strasbourg Court noted the failure of the Supreme Court in examining whether the applicant’s role in the demonstration had been peaceful under Article 11. Consequently, the supreme court was unable to explain why the arrest and conviction had been necessary in a democratic society. Therefore, the court found that the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of assembly constituted a violation of its right recognised under Article 11 of the Convention. 

Sources and further Reading: 

Case of Laurijsen and Others v. Netherlands (Application nos. 56896/17, 56910/17, 56914/17, 56917/17 and 57307/17), Judgment, Third Section, 21 November 2023: 

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-228986%22]}

Press Release issued by the Registrar to the Court, ECHR 318 (2023) 21 November 2023: 

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre-press#{%22itemid%22:[%22003-7804851-10826668%22]}