Quick answer
In Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania (Grand Chamber, 15 October 2015, application no. 37553/05), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 11 where farmers who blockaded major highways during a protest were convicted of a serious breach of public order. Peaceful assembly is protected even where it causes some disruption, but the deliberate blockade of motorways, causing serious and prolonged disruption, went well beyond the level of minor disturbance that the authorities must tolerate.
Background and facts
The applicants were Lithuanian farmers protesting against a fall in wholesale prices for agricultural produce. After obtaining permits for demonstrations in designated areas and holding negotiations with the Government, the farmers moved onto and blocked three major highways for around two days, bringing traffic to a standstill. They were prosecuted and convicted of instigating and participating in a riot / serious breach of public order and given suspended custodial sentences.
The complaint
The applicants complained under Article 11 (freedom of peaceful assembly) that their conviction was an unjustified interference with the right to protest, and also raised a complaint under Article 7.
The Court’s reasoning
The Grand Chamber confirmed that Article 11 protects peaceful assemblies, including those that annoy or give offence, and that public authorities have a duty of tolerance towards gatherings that cause a certain level of disruption to ordinary life, including the obstruction of traffic. However, that tolerance has limits. The physical blockade of major highways, almost completely obstructing traffic on important roads for a considerable time, caused serious and prolonged disruption that went far beyond the level of minor disturbance inherent in the ordinary exercise of the right of peaceful assembly. Such conduct was not at the core of the freedom protected by Article 11.
The interference — the applicants’ conviction and suspended sentences — pursued the legitimate aims of preventing disorder and protecting the rights of others. Given the serious disruption caused, the availability of lawful means of protest that the applicants had already used, and the relatively lenient penalties imposed, the interference was proportionate and “necessary in a democratic society”. There had accordingly been no violation of Article 11.
The judgment
- unanimously, no violation of Article 11; and no need to examine Article 7 separately.
Legacy and subsequent case law
Kudrevičius is the Grand Chamber’s leading statement on the boundary between protected protest and unlawful disruption. It confirms the authorities’ duty of tolerance towards peaceful assemblies while recognising that intentional, serious and prolonged obstruction — as opposed to the incidental disruption of a normal demonstration — may justify proportionate sanctions. It is routinely applied in cases on road blockades, sit-ins and disruptive direct action.
What this means for applicants
- Article 11 protects disruptive protest up to a point; authorities must tolerate the ordinary disruption a demonstration causes.
- Deliberate, serious and prolonged obstruction — such as blockading motorways — may fall outside that protection and justify proportionate penalties.
- Proportionality of the penalty matters; lenient sanctions weigh in favour of the State.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Kudrevičius v. Lithuania decide?
The Grand Chamber held unanimously that convicting farmers who blockaded major highways during a protest did not violate Article 11, because the serious and prolonged disruption went beyond the level of disturbance the authorities must tolerate.
Does Article 11 protect protests that disrupt traffic?
Yes, up to a point. Authorities have a duty of tolerance towards the ordinary disruption caused by peaceful assemblies, but deliberate, serious and prolonged obstruction may justify proportionate sanctions.
Were the farmers’ protests peaceful?
The demonstrations themselves were peaceful, but the Court found that physically blockading major highways caused disruption far exceeding what is inherent in the normal exercise of the right of assembly.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, or check the admissibility criteria.