Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and join trade unions. It is regarded by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a fundamental right and one of the foundations of a democratic society.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 91 The right is not absolute: Article 11(2) permits restrictions that are prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and are necessary in a democratic society.
Text
Peaceful assembly The right to freedom of assembly is only protected by Article 11 if the assembly is peaceful. Organisers or participants of assemblies who have violent intentions, incite violence, or otherwise reject the foundations of a democratic society are excluded.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 92 Since freedom of peaceful assembly is a fundamental right and a foundation of democratic society, the ECtHR adopts a wide interpretation.Mead, David (2010). The New Law of Peaceful Protest: Rights and Regulation in the Human Rights Act Era. Hart Publishing. p.57.
Unlawful or disruptive yet nonetheless peaceful assemblies do not automatically lose protection from Article 11.Cissé v France 51346/99 ECHR 2002-III, § 37, 39, 40Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 155Mead, David (2010). The New Law of Peaceful Protest: Rights and Regulation in the Human Rights Act Era. Hart Publishing. p.308. Disruption intentionally planned by assembly leaders cannot enjoy the same protection.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 156OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission (2019). Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (3rd ed.). Council of Europe. CDL-AD(2019)017, § 19.
In Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania (2015)Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, a blockade of three major highways with tractors, as part of a wider agricultural protest, led to the criminal conviction of five Lithuanian nationals. The Grand Chamber held that obstructing traffic as part of a demonstration is, by itself, peaceful conduct, but not at the core of the freedom protected by Article 11.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 97
Peaceful participants do not lose their right to assembly based on another or a group of others inciting violence.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 94 In Ezelin v France (1991)Ezelin v France 11800/85 Series A no 202, the ECtHR held that the freedom to take part in a peaceful assembly is of such importance that it cannot be restricted in any way, so long as the person concerned does not commit any reprehensible act on that occasion, even if others at the demonstration engage in violence.Ezelin v France 11800/85 Series A no 202, § 47, 53
The ECtHR interprets Article 11 in light of Article 10, which protects the right to freedom of expression, since one objective of freedom of assembly and association is the protection of opinions and the freedom to express them.Ezelin v France 11800/85 Series A no 202, § 37Mead, David (2010). The New Law of Peaceful Protest: Rights and Regulation in the Human Rights Act Era. Hart Publishing. p.94.
Positive obligation Article 11 requires states to take positive measures to secure the effective enjoyment of the right to assemble peacefully, rather than merely refraining from unreasonable interference.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 158Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v Austria 10126/82 Series A no 139, § 32OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission (2019). Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (3rd ed.). Council of Europe. CDL-AD(2019)017, § 22 Whether a state has discharged its positive obligations is assessed by the same standard as its negative ones: the ECtHR considers whether a fair balance has been struck between the public interest and the individual's right.Harris, David; O'Boyle, Michael; Bates, Ed; Buckley, Carla M. (2023). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. p.693.
In Bączkowski and Others v Poland (2007)Bączkowski and Others v Poland 1543/06 , the ECtHR stressed that the positive obligation to facilitate peaceful assembly is particularly important for those holding unpopular views or belonging to minorities, as they are more vulnerable to victimisation.Bączkowski and Others v Poland 1543/06 , § 64
States must also take appropriate measures to ensure the peaceful conduct of lawful demonstrations and the safety of all involved.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 159 This includes preventive security measures, such as the presence of first-aid services on the site of demonstrations.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 160Oya Ataman v Turkey 74552/01 ECHR 2006-XIV, § 39 The duty to communicate with assembly leaders is equally essential.Frumkin v Russia 74568/12 , § 128, 129
Counter-demonstrations A central aspect of the positive obligation is the state's duty to protect demonstrators from violent disruption by counter-demonstration.
Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v Austria (1988)Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v Austria 10126/82 Series A no 139 established that the right to counter-demonstrate does not extend to inhibiting the exercise of the right to demonstrate, and assemblies must be able to exercise their right without fear of physical violence from their opponents, as this would deter the open expression of opinions on controversial matters of importance.Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v Austria 10126/82 Series A no 139, § 32 States must therefore take reasonable and appropriate measures to enable lawful demonstrations to proceed peacefully.Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v Austria 10126/82 Series A no 139, § 34
Both demonstrations and counter-demonstrations are protected by Article 11, so states bear a positive obligation to both groups simultaneously. In cases with a serious threat of violent counter-demonstration, the state must find the least restrictive means enabling both assemblies to take place.Fáber v Hungary 40721/08 , § 43OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission (2019). Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (3rd ed.). Council of Europe. CDL-AD(2019)017, § 77.
The obligation is one as to measures taken, rather than results achieved, and states have a wide discretion to choose the means used to fulfil this duty and are not expected to guarantee peaceful conduct of assemblies absolutely.Plattform "Ärzte für das Leben" v Austria 10126/82 Series A no 139, § 34
Restrictions The right to freedom of assembly and association is not absolute. Article 11(2) outlines conditions in which restrictions on the exercise of the right are justified: the restriction must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 142
Prescribed by law Restrictions must have a basis in domestic law, that law must be accessible to those affected and its effects must be foreseeable.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 108 A norm cannot be regarded as law unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable a person to reasonably foresee the consequences which a given action may entail.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 109
In Navalnyy v Russia (2018)Navalnyy v Russia [GC] 29580/12 ECHR 2018, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognised that the law must indicate with sufficient clarity the scope of any discretion conferred on the executive and the manner of its exercise, so as to afford adequate protection against arbitrary interference with fundamental rights.Navalnyy v Russia [GC] 29580/12 ECHR 2018, § 115
Legitimate aim Restrictions must pursue one of the aims listed in Article 11(2): the interests of national security or public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. These exceptions are interpreted narrowly.
The ECtHR guidance on Article 11 identifies prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others as the most commonly cited permissible grounds for restriction. These grounds will be rejected if the cited aim is clearly irrelevant in the specific circumstances.European Court of Human Rights (2025). Guide on Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Assembly and Association. Council of Europe. § 63-65.
Necessary in a democratic society A restriction must answer a "pressing social need" and be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 143 States must give relevant and sufficient reasons for interference, and the authorities must have applied standards that conform to the principles of the Convention. The ECtHR conducts a proportionality analysis, weighing the requirement of the aims listed in Article 11(2) against the free expression of opinions by persons assembled in public places.Ezelin v France 11800/85 Series A no 202, § 52
During this assessment, states enjoy a margin of appreciation of varied scope, depending on the specific circumstances. Public events related to political life must enjoy strong protection, so the ECtHR applies the most serious scrutiny to restrictions on the basis of an assembly's content, such as suppressing the expression of perceivably objectionable views.Navalnyy v Russia [GC] 29580/12 ECHR 2018, § 136European Court of Human Rights (2025). Guide on Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Assembly and Association. Council of Europe. § 74.Harris, David; O'Boyle, Michael; Bates, Ed; Buckley, Carla M. (2023). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. p.701. A government must not have the power to ban a demonstration because it considers the demonstrators’ message to be wrong. Conversely, where demonstrators intentionally cause disruption to ordinary life, exceeding that which is inevitable in the circumstances, the ECtHR grants states a wider margin of appreciation in assessing the necessity of the restrictive measures.
In Kudrevičius, the Grand Chamber held that the obstruction of three major highways constituted reprehensible conduct justifying criminal penalties, although it also examined the conduct of the authorities and the precise nature of the penalties imposed to ensure proportionality with the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights and freedoms of others.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 174-178
Enforcement States may require prior notification or authorisation of public assemblies provided the purpose of such procedures is to allow authorities to take reasonable measures to guarantee the smooth conduct of the event.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 147 The failure to comply with domestic legal requirements does not automatically justify dispersal or the imposition of sanctions, nor does it mean the assembly is not protected by Article 11.Kudrevičius and Others v Lithuania [GC] 37553/05 ECHR 2015, § 150 The ECtHR has held that where irregular demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence, authorities must show a certain degree of tolerance towards peaceful gatherings so that their freedom of assembly is not deprived of all substance.OSCE/ODIHR and Venice Commission (2019). Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly (3rd ed.). Council of Europe. CDL-AD(2019)017. § 21.