Case 256_91
256_91 interference
91. The Court reiterates that an interference with the exercise of freedom
of peaceful assembly does not need to amount to an outright ban, whether
legal or de facto, but can consist in various other measures taken by the
authorities. The term “restrictions” in Article 11 § 2 must be interpreted as
including both measures taken before or during an act of assembly and
those, such as punitive measures, taken afterwards (see Ezelin, cited above,
§ 39). Thus, the Court has considered in a number of cases that penalties
imposed for taking part in a rally amounted to an interference with the right
to freedom of assembly (see, for example, Ezelin, cited above, § 41; Osmani
and Others v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (dec.),
no. 50841/99, ECHR 2001-X; Mkrtchyan v. Armenia, no. 6562/03, § 37,
11 January 2007; Galstyan, cited above, § 101; Ashughyan v Armenia, 36 GÜLCÜ v. TURKEY JUDGMENT
no. 33268/03, § 77, 17 July 2008; Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia,
no. 10877/04, § 36, 23 October 2008; Uzunget and Others v. Turkey,
no. 21831/03, § 43, 13 October 2009; and Yılmaz Yıldız and Others
v. Turkey, no. 4524/06, § 34, 14 October 2014).