In the case, the applicants participated in a gathering of about 150 persons against the preannounced eviction of a squatted building in central Amsterdam. They were arrested for blockading the road and charged with participating in an unlawful gathering or otherwise disturbing public order and failure to comply with a police order to disperse, under the general municipal by-law.
The Regional Court acquitted the applicants of the first offence and discharged them from prosecution for the second one. The Court of Appeal, however, found that this had not been the case as the protest had not been peaceful because the organizers and participants had intended to confront the police and to physically prevent the eviction. Therefore, it sentenced each applicant to two fines of 50 euros. That ruling was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court which added that the gathering did not fall within the protective scope of Article 11 of the Convention since the organizers and participants had violent intentions.
The European Court of Human Rights believed that even if the purpose of the gathering had gone beyond conveying disapproval of the eviction of the squat and the participants had also sought to prevent the lawful eviction of the squat, that had not, of itself, removed the applicants’ participation in it from the scope of protection of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11. Furthermore, no violent intentions or behavior could be inferred, from the calls posted online or the slogans chanted. Also, the applicants had not been amongst the protesters who had been arrested and prosecuted on suspicion of publicly committing concerted acts of violence against persons or property. Individuals were not to be held responsible for the acts of violence by other participants.
Moreover, since it did not appear from the materials in the case file that the applicants had personally set off smoke bombs, threw objects or kicked out in the direction of the police, or otherwise resorted or incited to violence, the Court found that the conduct during the gathering for which the applicants had been held responsible, had not been of such a nature and degree as to remove their participation in it from the protective scope of Article 11.
In conclusion, the Court announced that the applicants were entitled to invoke the guarantees of Article 11, which was therefore applicable ratione materiae in the present case, and that their arrest, prosecution and conviction had amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly.