Source: http://freeassembly.net/foaa-online/expression-or-assembly-rights/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:53:51+00:00

Document:
Freedom of peaceful assembly is sometimes difficult to separate from freedom of expression. Authors of communications to the Human Rights Committee that relate to protests often invoke both freedom of expression and of assembly, and the Human Rights Committee is willing to apply both rights. See, for example, Kivenmaa v. Finland, Human Rights Committee, Views of 9 June 1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/50/D/412/1990 and Galina Youbko v. Belarus, Human Rights Committee, Views of 24 April 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/110/D/1903/2009.
The IACHR has stated that demonstrations are “a form of expression involving the exercise of related rights such as the right of citizens to assemble and demonstrate and the right to the free flow of opinions and information.” IACHR, Report on the Criminalization of the Work of Human Rights Defenders, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc.49/15, 31 December 2015, para.119.
The Court notes that … Article 10 of the Convention is to be regarded as a lex generalis in relation to Article 11 of the Convention, a lex specialis … On the other hand, notwithstanding its autonomous role and particular sphere of application, Article 11 of the Convention must … also be considered in the light of Article 10 of the Convention. The protection of personal opinions, secured by Article 10 of the Convention, is one of the objectives of freedom of peaceful assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention. Yarouslav Belousov v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 4 October 2016, paras. 166-167 (references omitted); see also Ezelin v. France, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 1991, paras. 35-37.
In practice, the ECtHR has tended to analyze certain forms of protest as exercises of freedom of expression rather than freedom of peaceful assembly. These include one-person protests, See, for example, Novikova and Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 2016. the establishment of protest camps, See G and E v. Norway, EComHR, Decision of 3 October 1983 and Frumkin v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 January 2016, para. 107. shouting slogans during a ceremony, Açık and Others v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 13 January 2009, para. 36. hunger strikes, Atilla v. Turkey, ECtHR, Decision of 11 May 2010. symbolic acts of protest (such as hanging out clothing representing the “dirty laundry of the nation”, Tatár and Fáber v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 12 June 2012, para. 29. pouring paint on a sculpture Murat Vural v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 21 October 2014, paras. 40-56. or burning flags and photos Christian Democratic People’s Party v. Moldova (no. 2), ECtHR, Judgment of 2 February 2010, para. 27 ), displaying signs or political symbols, Vajnai v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 8 July 2008, paras. 27-29; Fratanoló v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 3 November 2011, para. 13; Fáber v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 24 July 2012, para. 29. occupations of public buildings See Taranenko v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 May 2014, paras. 68-69. and direct actions intended to block activities that demonstrators disapprove of. See, for example, Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, Judgment of 23 September 1998, para. 92; Hashman and Harrup v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 25 November 1999, para. 28; Drieman and Others v. Norway, ECtHR, Decision of 4 May 2000.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.