Freedom of peaceful assembly and proportionality of sanctions: Rădulescu Dobrogea and Ciurea v. Romania

Introduction

On 16 July 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) delivered its judgment in the joined cases of Rădulescu Dobrogea and Ciurea v. Romania (Applications nos. 63972/19 and 16056/20). The judgment addresses the compatibility with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of administrative fines imposed by Romanian authorities on two individuals who participated in a peaceful public protest held outside a political party congress in Bucharest in March 2018.

The Court's central finding is that the interference with the applicants' rights under Article 11 of the Convention, read in light of Article 10, was not 'necessary in a democratic society'. The domestic courts failed to conduct a proper balancing of the competing interests at stake, gave preponderant weight to the formal unlawfulness of the protest, and did not adequately assess the level of disturbance caused by the applicants' actions. The sanctions imposed were found to be insufficiently justified and disproportionate.

This article examines the factual background, the legal framework applied by the Court, and the significance of the judgment for the protection of the right to peaceful assembly within the Council of Europe system. It does not constitute legal advice, and readers with specific legal questions are encouraged to seek qualified professional guidance.

Background to the cases and the applicants

The two applicants, Mr Niculae Rădulescu Dobrogea (born 1941) and Mr Bogdan Ciurea (born 1977), are Romanian nationals residing in Bucharest. Both were supporters of a non-governmental association called Evolution in Institution (Evoluție în Instituție, known as 'E.I.'), an organisation described in the judgment as one that promotes transparency and accountability in the manner that public institutions work and interact with ordinary citizens.

According to the judgment, in 2017 and 2018 the applicants, together with other E.I. supporters, participated in several public protests held in Bucharest and across Romania. Those protests were directed against certain actions taken by the government or by other public or political institutions that were considered by many to have undermined the rule of law and the fight against corruption. This broader context of civic engagement is relevant to understanding the nature of the assembly at issue.

Mr Rădulescu Dobrogea was represented before the Court by Ms C.-M. Rădulescu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. Mr Ciurea was represented successively by Mr I.-R. Gheorghe, practising in Buzău, and Mr T. Decean, practising in Cluj-Napoca. The Romanian Government were represented by their Agent, Ms O.-F. Ezer, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applications were lodged on 29 November 2019 and 17 March 2020 respectively.

The events of March 2018: the congress and the surrounding arrangements

The judgment sets out in detail the sequence of events that preceded the protest. On 5 March 2018, a representative of a political party forming part of the governing coalition informed the Bucharest mayor's office that the party's leaders intended to host an extraordinary party congress at a venue called Palace Hall (Sala Palatului) in Bucharest on 10 March 2018. The event was scheduled to run from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with approximately 4,000 people expected to attend. The party requested that the mayor's office take measures to protect participants and ensure traffic flow in the area, including restricting car access to certain streets around Palace Hall and reserving car parks for attendees.

On 7 March 2018, the political party and the mayor's office signed a formal agreement confirming that the mayor's office would implement those measures. The agreement also provided that the arrival and departure of vehicles transporting participants would be supervised by the relevant law-enforcement authorities, and that the event's organiser was responsible for clearly marking the area used for the event and for taking measures, under the guidance of law-enforcement authorities, to avert any risks to participants.

On 8 March 2018, the political party made a further request to supplement the agreed measures. This included restricting car access to additional streets, including the lane of traffic on Ion Câmpineanu Street closest to Palace Hall, setting up metal fences on sections of the footpath on that street adjacent to the restricted lane, and approving a possible gradual restriction of car traffic on both lanes of the street if necessary. The judgment notes that by this point 8,000 people had been invited to the congress, of whom 4,000 could not be accommodated inside Palace Hall and would therefore remain outside in an area that included the space between the building and Ion Câmpineanu Street. These logistical arrangements form an important part of the factual matrix against which the protest and the subsequent sanctions must be assessed.

The Court's legal analysis under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention

The applicants' primary complaint before the Court was that the judgments of the Romanian national courts, which upheld the administrative fines imposed on them for participating in the public assembly, violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention respectively. The Court examined the complaint principally under Article 11, read in light of Article 10, which is the established approach when a case concerns participation in a public protest that also carries an expressive dimension.

The Court found that the protest concerned a topic of public interest and contributed to the ongoing debate in society about the impact and exercise of governmental and political powers. This characterisation is significant: it places the assembly within the category of expression that attracts a heightened level of protection under the Convention, given the importance the Court consistently attaches to public debate on matters of political and governmental concern.

Critically, the Court identified a series of failures in the domestic courts' reasoning. First, the national courts did not assess the level of disturbance actually caused by the applicants' actions. Second, the domestic courts gave preponderant weight to the formal unlawfulness of the protest — that is, to the fact that it had not been organised in compliance with the applicable procedural requirements — without adequately weighing this against the applicants' Convention rights. Third, the Court found that the domestic courts failed to conduct a proper balancing of the competing interests at stake and provided insufficient reasons for their decisions. On the basis of these findings, the Court concluded that the interference with the applicants' rights was not 'necessary in a democratic society' and that the sanctions imposed were not sufficiently justified or proportionate.

Significance of the judgment for the protection of peaceful assembly

The judgment in Rădulescu Dobrogea and Ciurea v. Romania reinforces a number of principles that the Court has developed in its case law on freedom of peaceful assembly. Most notably, it affirms that the mere formal unlawfulness of an assembly — for example, non-compliance with notification or authorisation requirements — cannot, by itself, justify the imposition of sanctions on participants. National courts are required to go further and to assess the substantive impact of the assembly, including the actual level of disturbance caused, before concluding that a sanction is proportionate.

The judgment also underlines the obligation on domestic courts to engage in genuine balancing of the competing interests at stake. Where an assembly concerns matters of public interest and contributes to political debate, the threshold for justifying interference is correspondingly high. Insufficient reasoning by national courts — even where a formal legal basis for the sanction exists — will not satisfy the requirements of the Convention.

From an institutional perspective, the judgment serves as a reminder to Council of Europe member states that administrative sanctions imposed on participants in peaceful protests are subject to scrutiny under the Convention. States must ensure that their courts apply a proportionality analysis that is substantive rather than merely formal, and that the reasons given for upholding sanctions are adequate to demonstrate that the interference was necessary in a democratic society. The judgment was delivered by the Fourth Section sitting as a Chamber composed of seven judges, with President Lado Chanturia presiding, and was adopted following private deliberations on 23 June 2026.

Conclusion

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Rădulescu Dobrogea and Ciurea v. Romania, delivered on 16 July 2026, represents a clear application of the Court's established principles on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly under Article 11 of the Convention, read in light of Article 10. The Court found that Romania had violated the applicants' Convention rights by upholding administrative fines imposed on them for participating in a peaceful public protest outside a political party congress in Bucharest in March 2018.

The judgment identifies three core deficiencies in the domestic courts' approach: the failure to assess the actual level of disturbance caused by the applicants; the excessive weight given to the formal unlawfulness of the protest; and the failure to conduct a proper balancing of the competing interests at stake, resulting in insufficient reasons for the decisions reached. Together, these deficiencies led the Court to conclude that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society and that the sanctions were neither sufficiently justified nor proportionate.

For legal practitioners, academics, and public authorities operating within the Council of Europe system, the judgment offers a clear illustration of the standards that national courts must meet when adjudicating on the lawfulness of sanctions imposed on participants in peaceful assemblies. The full text of the judgment is available on the HUDOC database at the URL referenced in the document metadata.

This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Sources consulted

• CASE OF RĂDULESCU DOBROGEA AND CIUREA v. ROMANIA - European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe