Permanent bodily injury of a protester in a spontaneous gathering due to excessive use of force by the police. Violation of the freedom of assembly
JUDGMENT
Laguna Guzman v. Spain 6.10.2020 (app. no. 41462/17)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the applicant’s complaint that she had been left permanently injured after the
police forcefully dispersed a spontaneous gathering that had taken place after an official
demonstration.
The Court found in particular that the spontaneous protest had been peaceful up until its dispersal
and that the applicant herself had not been arrested or prosecuted for any violent actions. The use
of force deployed by the police had not therefore been justified and had amounted to a
disproportionate interference with the applicant’s rights.
PROVISION
Article 11
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Montserrat Laguna Guzman, is a Spanish national who was born in 1967 and lives in
Santovenia de Pisuerga (Spain).
On 2 February 2014, the applicant took part in a demonstration in Valladolid against budgetary cuts
and high unemployment rates. The authorities had been notified in advance of the demonstration as
required by Spanish legislation and the necessary measures had been requested by the organisers to
regulate road traffic.
However, after the demonstration officially ended, a group of 50 to 60 protesters continued
marching. They stopped at a square in front of a restaurant where some politicians were having
lunch, and displayed a placard reading “stop the criminalisation of social protest”.
Ms Guzman, who was holding the placard, was injured when the police intervened to disperse the
protest. She was struck with a truncheon, and taken to hospital to be treated for injuries to her
mouth, hand and head. In 2016, the Institute of Legal Medicine of Valladolid concluded that she was
“permanently incapacitated” as a consequence of her injuries.
The courts subsequently dismissed criminal proceedings brought against the policemen for causing
bodily harm, finding that they had had to use force in the face of a situation of violence and disorder.
The applicant’s amparo appeal against this decision was declared inadmissible by the Constitutional
Court in 2017.
Criminal proceedings were also brought against three of the protesters, but they were acquitted in
2018. The judge ruling on the case concluded that the protesters had been violently repressed
without any prior warning, despite the fact that they had not blocked traffic or provoked the
confrontation with the police.
The 2018 criminal judgment was taken into account by the Audiencia National in 2019 when ruling
on Ms Guzman’s claim for compensation against the Ministry of the Interior for her injuries. She was
awarded 10,000 euros.
No criminal proceedings were ever initiated against Ms Guzman.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court considered that the dispersal of the informal protest after the official demonstration,
resulting in the applicant sustaining injuries, had interfered with her right to freedom of peaceful
assembly.
The Court reiterated that while rules governing public assemblies, such as prior notification, were
essential for the smooth conduct of public events, their enforcement could not become an end in
itself. In particular, the public authorities had to show a certain degree of tolerance towards
spontaneous demonstrations which remained peaceful.
It considered that that tolerance should be extended to the case at hand. Although the spontaneous
gathering in question had caused a certain amount of nuisance, it had been conducted in a peaceful
manner up until its dispersal. Indeed, it had not been argued or demonstrated that it would have
been difficult for the police to contain or redirect the protesters, or otherwise control the situation.
Nor had it been shown that the demonstration had posed a high level of disruption to public order.
The authorities had not therefore provided relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the dispersal of
the demonstration.
Indeed, it had been established in the proceedings ending in 2018 that the protesters’ behaviour and
the harmlessness of their slogans and placards had not justified the force deployed by the police.
Such unjustified use of force against the applicant in particular, who had never been arrested or
prosecuted for any violent actions during the protests, was therefore sufficient for the Court to
conclude that the interference with her rights had been disproportionate, in violation of Article 11.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Spain was to pay the applicant 248.10 euros (EUR) in respect of costs and
expenses.
