SOCIETY SERBIA- CHINESE FRIENDSHIPS FDH v. Serbia

On May 5, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) rendered, and on June 2 of the same year, published its judgment in the caseSociety of Serbian-Chinese Friendship FDH against Serbia, number 54936/20.

The verdict was unanimousbroughtseven-member Council.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

In 2016, the Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH (hereinafter: the applicant society) properly and timely reported three peaceful gatherings in Belgrade during the official visit of the President of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter: NO China) to the Republic of Serbia.

The first gathering, which was supposed to take place on June 17, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. in Mihaila Pupin Boulevard, opposite the "Six Corporals" building, was reported to the Novi Beograd police station seven days earlier - on June 10.

The second gathering, which was supposed to take place on June 18, 2016, from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Užička Street 25, across the street from the Embassy of the People's Republic of China, was reported to the Savski Venac police station five days earlier - on June 13.

On the same day, June 13, 2016, a third rally was reported to the Stari Grad police station, which was supposed to take place on June 18, 2016, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Trg Republike in Belgrade.

Local competent police stations of the Police Administration for the City of Belgrade (hereinafter: PS) banned all three gatherings with the same explanation, on the same day when the reports were submitted. The decision of PS Novi Beograd 03/16/17/2 number 212-881/16 was prepared and delivered on June 10, while the solutions of PS Savski venac 03/16/17/2 number 212-332/16 and PS Stari grad number 212-192/16 were prepared and delivered on June 13, 2016.

In almost identical explanations, all three police stations referred to Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Law on Public Gatherings ("Official Gazette of the RS", number 6/2016), which prescribes the possibility of banning gatherings "when there is a threat to the safety of people and property, public health, morality, the rights of others or the security of the Republic of Serbia". The decisions further state: "Given that there is a possibility that a large number of citizens of the People's Republic of China residing in the Republic of Serbia will gather in the area registered for holding a public gathering, in order to support the President of the People's Republic of China, as well as a simultaneous gathering of Falun Dafa supporters, there is a danger of mutual conflict, which would endanger the safety of people and property in the said area."

Against the contested decisions, the applicant company timely filed three appeals to the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP), which were rejected as unfounded. Regarding the ban on the assembly in New Belgrade, the Ministry of Internal Affairs rejected the appeal with Decision 03/4 No. 212-2089/16 of June 13, while the appeal against the decision banning the assembly in front of the Chinese Embassy was rejected with Decision 03/4 No. 212-2089/16-6 of June 16. In the end, the appeal regarding the banning of the assembly at Trg Republike MUP was rejected by decision 03/4 number 212-2089/16-4, also passed on June 16, 2016.

In order to obtain judicial protection, the applicant company filed a complaint with the Administrative Court on June 16, 2016 regarding the prohibition of the assembly in front of the Embassy of the Republic of China and the assembly in New Belgrade. The next day, on June 17, 2016, it filed a lawsuit against the decisions made regarding the ban on the assembly on Trg Republike.

The Administrative Court rejected all three claims of the applicant company. The decision regarding the banning of the assembly on Trg Republike was made 42 days after the lawsuit was filed (case U. 8987/16), the decision regarding the ban on the gathering in front of the Embassy of the Chinese People's Republic was made after 86 dayssince the filing of the lawsuit (case U. 8988/16), and the decision regarding the ban on the gathering in New Belgrade was made 708 days after the filing of the lawsuit (case U. 9029/16).

As he failed to obtain timely judicial protection, the applicant company applied to the Constitutional Court on July 18, 2016, regarding all the aforementioned bans on announced public gatherings. In the constitutional appeal, it pointed out the violation of the right to a fair trial and to public assembly from Art. 32 and 54 of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia, as well as a violation of the principle of prohibition of discrimination from Article 21 of the Constitution.

By decision Už-5656/2016 of February 8, 2024, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal of the applicant company due to the lack of legal remedies, because the applicant company did not submit a request for postponement of the execution of the decision that did not allow the gathering. prescribed by the provisions of Article 23, para. 2. - 4.  Law on Administrative Disputes ("Official Gazette of RS",number 11/2009).

COMPLAINTS SOCIETIES OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant company submitted a petition to the Court on December 1, 2020.

The petition complained about the violation of the right to freedom of assembly from Article 11 of the Convention, claiming that the competent authorities did not thoroughly assess the risk when making decisions on the prohibition of assembly, but based the contested decisions on the assumption that people of different political beliefs would be found in the same space, which would lead to danger.

The applicant company also complained about the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 in connection with Article 11 of the Convention, because the judgments of the Administrative Court were passed significantly after the announced dates of the gathering, and the proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted almost 7 years and 7 months.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• A member11. Conventions

The court rejected the Government's complaint about non-exhaustion of legal remedies by the applicant company because it did not submit a request to postpone the execution of the decision that does not allow the holding of the assembly prescribed by the provision of Article 23, paragraph. 2 - 4 of the Law on Administrative Disputes.

The court pointed out that it cannot be concluded from domestic practice that this request was ever used in the context of banning public gatherings, and although the provision of Article 23, paragraph 4 of the Law on Administrative Disputes sets a deadline of five days for deciding on the request, this does not imply that it must be decided before the date of the announced gathering. The order of the President of the Administrative Court They are I-2 11/16 of February 10, 2016 does not provide for action with particular urgency in those cases.

Considering the allegations of the applicant company on the merits, the Court, first of all, established: yes aredecisions of the competent state authorities, which have prohibited the planned public protests of the applicant's company, undoubtedly represented interference in the exercise of his right to freedom of peaceful assembly; yes it isinterference was prescribed by law (Article 8. of the Law on Public Assembly); that it is relevantinterference aimed at a legitimate goal "prevention of disorder", although in the specific case such fears were rather vaguely explained.

Evaluatingwhether interference was necessary in a democratic society, the court found that the competent authorities did not conduct a serious and specific assessment of security risks before banning the gatherings. Instead, they relied on the assumption that there could be clashes between supporters of the Chinese president and the protesters. However, there was no concrete evidence for such a conclusion, but it was mostly speculation and general assessments based on media reports and a significant number of members of the applicant's society at the world level.

The court pointed out that, even if there was a real danger of conflict, the competent authorities should not have immediately banned gatherings. Before that, they were obliged to try to ensure the peaceful holding of the meeting, for example by increasing the police security, organizational measures or proposing another location for the protest.

The court also reminded that the right to peaceful assembly also protects assemblies whose messages may be unpopular, disturbing or offensive to others. Otherwise, any group that disagrees with a position could prevent its public expression simply by threatening to create tensions.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the interference of the state in the right of the applicant society to free assembly was not necessary in a democratic society. 

Following the above, the Courtis determined the injury freedom of assembly from Article 11 of the Convention.

• Article 13. Conventions

Having established the violation of the right to free assembly from Article 11 of the Convention, the Court considered that it had grounds for considering the applicant's company's complaint regarding the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention.

The court noted that the applicant company used all available legal means, both in the administrative procedure and in the procedure before the Administrative Court. However, the Administrative Court decided on the claims of the applicant company after the date of the planned gatherings (June 17 and 18, 2016), so those judgments had no practical purpose, whether the claims of the applicant company were accepted or not.

The applicant company also submitted a constitutional appeal, which was decided by the Constitutional Court on February 8, 2024, i.e. almost 7 years and 7 months after its submission, so that the constitutional appeal, as well as the lawsuit before the Administrative Court, have subsequent (post hoc)character.

The court reiterated that the request for postponement of the execution of the administrative act prescribed by Article 23 of the Law on Administrative Disputes is not considered an effective legal remedy in the sense of the Convention.

Accordingly, the Court isestablished a violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention.

FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)

The applicant company did not request any monetary compensation for damages, and the Court assessed that there was no reason to award it.