The imposition of fine to an activist protester constituted a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression
JUDGMENT
Bumbeș v. Romania 03.05.2022 (app. no. 18079/15)
SUMMARY
The case concerned the fining of Mr Bumbeș for taking part in a protest against proposed gold- and
silver-mining activity in the Roșia Montană area. He along with three others had handcuffed
themselves to one of the entrance barriers of the main Government building and displayed signs.
The Court found in particular that the domestic courts had not focussed on the issue of public
speech on a matter of public interest and had not duly considered the extent of the “disruption of
ordinary life” caused by the protest, instead looking primarily at the lack of prior notification of the
protest. The resulting fine had had a chilling effect on such speech, and overall had not been
“necessary in a democratic society”.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Mihail Liviu Bumbeș, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Curtea
de Argeș (Romania).
Mr Bumbeș is a known activist and a founding member and president of the Spiritual Militia Civic
Movement Association (Asociaţia Mișcarea Civică Miliţia Spirituală).
Mr Bumbeș took part in the Salvaţi Roșia Montană campaign, which was a protest movement
against proposed gold and silver mining, which would have involved the uses of cyanide, in Roșia
Montană, an area in north-western Romania which has since been named a UNESCO world heritage
site.
On 28 August 2013 Mr Bumbeș and three other protesters handcuffed themselves to one of the
entrance barriers of the main Government building, where they held up signs. The protest was
filmed by an acquaintance. The protesters refused to leave when asked to do so by a gendarme.
Eventually the police cut the rails to which they were attached and placed the protestors, including
Mr Bumbeș, in police cars.
During interviews in the recording, the protestors made it clear that they intended to raise
awareness and to actually do something concrete around the mining issue, given that earlier
petitions had been ignored.
Mr Bumbeș was fined 500 Romanian lei (about 113 euros) at the police station for breaching certain
norms of social coexistence and the public order and peace (Law no. 61/1991). According to the
police he acknowledged his actions orally but refused to sign the police report.
In September 2013 Mr Bumbeș challenged the fine in court. He stated that even if it had been
necessary to issue a sanction, the actions had been miscategorised by the police and should have
fallen under Law no. 60/1991 on the organisation and conduct of public gatherings, as expressing
opinion freely could not be an antisocial act. He argued, citing the Court’s case-law, that
spontaneous protest was protected by the right to freedom of assembly, and pointed out that his
protest had been peaceful.
The Bucharest District Court dismissed the challenge. It held that the police report was lawful,
Mr Bumbeș’s actions had been correctly categorised, and the sanction had been in accordance with
Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention.
Mr Bumbeș appealed, arguing, among other things, that the District Court had not examined the
video-recording of the protest or his arguments about freedom of expression. The Bucharest County
Court upheld the first-instance judgment, adding that accepting Mr Bumbeș’s arguments regarding
categorisation of the offence would mean that many instances of breach of the peace would go
unpunished. It held that protest had to be conducted in accordance with the law, meaning that
three-days’ notice should have been given in this case.
That judgment was final.
Parliament later voted down the bill to allow mining in Roșia Montană following widespread
protests.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court reiterated that freedom of expression constituted one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society, which included not only the ideas expressed, but also how they are expressed.
Article 11, however, only protected the right to peaceful protest. It stated that freedom of
expression and freedom of peaceful assembly were closely linked in this case.
The parties disagreed as to whether the fine had constituted an interference with the applicant’s
right to freedom of expression. The Court held that there had been an interference, given that the
fine had not just concerned his conduct, but his attempt to spread a message.
The applicant contested the legal qualification of the incident, stating that it should have come
under Law no. 60/1991 rather than Article 3 § 2 of Law no. 61/1991. The resulting fine had thus been
unlawful. The Court reiterated that its power to review compliance with domestic law was limited
and so it would just examine whether the effects of the domestic courts’ interpretation had been
compatible with the Convention, furthermore ruling that the two laws in question were
complementary and could be read in conjunction with each other.
The Court observed that by virtue of these two Laws, any public gathering without prior notification
could be declared unlawful. That clearly included the applicant’s protest. The Court was also
satisfied that the legitimate aim of preventing public disorder had informed the relevant fine in this
case.
It determined that the actions of the applicant and his fellow protestors had been to draw the
attention of the public and officials to the Roșia Montană mining project, which had been of general
interest. There was little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political
speech on questions of public interest. The applicant had been given little time to express his views,
and the courts had dealt with the matter as a prior-notification question principally, and had not
examined the actual disruption the applicant had caused and thus had not balanced the right to
freedom of expression with the need to maintain public order. Effectively, the enforcement of rules
governing public assemblies had become an end in itself in this case.
Lastly, the Court stated that the fine imposed had had a chilling effect on public speech.
Given the above, the Court ruled that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of
expression had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, leading to a violation of Article 10
interpreted in the light of Article 11.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant 113 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage, EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,872 in respect of costs and
expenses.
