Judgment Bodson and Others v. Belgium - case involving trade-union members convicted of maliciously obstructing road traffic

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 018 (2025)   16.01.2025   No breach of Convention in case involving trade-union members   convicted of maliciously obstructing road traffic   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Bodson and Others v. Belgium (applications   nos. 35834/22 and 15 others) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there   had been:   no violation of Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention on   Human Rights.   The case concerned the applicants’ criminal convictions for maliciously obstructing road traffic by   blocking the A3/E40 motorway, at the Cheratte bridge near Liège, for around five hours without   prior permission. Their actions resulted in a traffic jam some 400 kilometres long and created a   generally tense environment marked by various incidents.   The Court noted that the applicants had been convicted neither for striking nor for expressing their   opinions. Rather, they had been found guilty of taking part in traffic obstruction giving rise to a   potentially dangerous situation, which was an offence under the Criminal Code. The Liège Court of   Appeal had considered, in particular, that they had remained on the scene despite being fully aware   of the blockade. It had further found that, by knowingly and willingly refusing to take action, they   had made an essential contribution to the commission of the offence of maliciously obstructing road   traffic. Some of them, having regard to their union duties, had even played a “major”, if not   “crucial”, role in the blockade.   The Court specified that it could not unreservedly endorse the argument that the right to strike   included the right for a trade union or its members to obstruct public roads without prior   permission. Such action could bring traffic on a major motorway route to a standstill for several   hours, considerably disrupting the daily life and lawful activities of non-participants and creating a   dangerous environment for road users.   The Court concluded that, in convicting the applicants of maliciously obstructing traffic, the domestic   courts had based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and on reasons which   were relevant and sufficient. Thus, the national authorities had not exceeded their discretion   (“margin of appreciation”) in relation to the subject matter.   Principal facts   The applications concerned 16 Belgian nationals, one of whom had died (his wife, however, wished   to pursue the application). At the relevant time, six of the applicants had union duties within the   FGTB, one of the two largest trade unions in Belgium. The other applicants were affiliated members.   On 19 October 2015 the FGTB led a general strike – announced several weeks in advance – to   protest against the austerity measures introduced by the federal government at the time. Various   initiatives had been planned for the occasion.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,   any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges   considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final   judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   According to the applicants, one such initiative consisted in blockading a shopping centre around a   Carrefour supermarket in Herstal. Pickets were thus set up early in the morning in front of that   shopping centre, which was located right next to the access roads for the A3/E40 motorway, near   the Cheratte bridge over the Meuse River. At around 5.30 a.m. unidentified protestors blocked the   motorway by erecting barricades and lighting them on fire. Between 100 and 200 individuals   (according to the national authorities), including the applicants, could subsequently be found on the   bridge. The blockade, which lasted approximately five hours, caused a traffic jam some   400 kilometres long on the Brussels-Aachen section of the motorway, in both directions, creating a   tense environment marked by various incidents.   Criminal proceedings were later brought against the applicants, who had been identified at the   scene by means of television news footage and social media posts. Ruling on appeal, the Liège Court   of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment in 2021, finding that each of the applicants had   knowingly and willingly taken part in the potentially dangerous obstruction of traffic, which was   prohibited under Article 406 of the Criminal Code. Among other things, it considered that the   blockade had made it impossible for any vehicle – including emergency vehicles – to use a high-   speed road and had prevented or rendered excessively hazardous any police intervention, resulting   in long queues of lorries and cars. The applicants were sentenced to prison terms of between   15 days and one month, suspended for three years, and received fines ranging from 1,200 to   2,100 euros. They lodged appeals on points of law with the Court of Cassation, which were   dismissed.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   All the applicants submitted that their criminal convictions had breached Article 10 (freedom of   expression) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the Convention. The Court   decided to examine their complaints under Article 11 of the Convention, read in the light of   Article 10.   Relying on Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) in conjunction with Articles 10 and 11, six of the   applicants further argued that the severity of their sentences could be explained by their trade-   union membership and that their conviction was therefore discriminatory in relation to the other   applicants.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 July 2022.   The Ligue des droits humains and the European Trade Union Confederation were granted leave to   intervene as third parties in the written procedure.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ivana Jelić (Montenegro), President,   Alena Poláčková (Slovakia),   Georgios A. Serghides (Cyprus),   Frédéric Krenc (Belgium),   Alain Chablais (Liechtenstein),   Raffaele Sabato (Italy),   Artūrs Kučs (Latvia),   and also Ilse Freiwirth, Section Registrar.   2 Decision of the Court   Article 11: complaint made by all the applicants   The Court noted that the applicants had been convicted of “maliciously” obstructing traffic. That   conviction, however, amounted to an interference with their right to freedom of peaceful assembly   because the domestic courts had not established that the applicants had either intended to use or   had actually used violence.   The interference was prescribed by Article 406 of the Criminal Code and pursued legitimate aims,   namely the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.   As regards the proportionality of the interference, the Court first observed that the events which   took place as a result of the blockade of the Cheratte bridge had not been notified in advance, let   alone received prior permission from the authorities.   Furthermore, the traffic obstruction at issue had not been triggered by a sudden event which might   have justified an immediate response. The protestors’ actions had not been directly aimed at an   activity of which they disapproved, but at the physical blocking of another activity which had no   alleged direct connection with the object of their protest. And it had not been alleged, much less   proved, that the contested blockade had been the only possible way to have their demands heard.   In addition, it did not appear from the domestic courts’ findings that the applicants had been   responsible for the blockade. However, even if individuals were not responsible for a road blockade,   any measures taken against them for participating in such an activity and contributing to a   dangerous obstruction of traffic would not necessarily be incompatible with Article 11. Furthermore,   the Court could not overlook the significant and sometimes very serious consequences that a total   blockade of a major motorway route might entail for other individuals not participating in the   protest, particularly in terms of their Convention rights. Those consequences, of course, had to go   beyond the mere inconvenience that any demonstration on a public road was likely to cause.   In the present case, the Court noted that the applicants had been convicted neither for striking nor   for expressing their opinions. Rather, they had been found guilty of taking part in traffic obstruction   giving rise to a potentially dangerous situation, which was an offence under the Criminal Code. The   Court of Appeal had considered that they had gone to the scene and had remained there despite   being fully aware of the blockade. It had further found that, by knowingly and willingly refusing to   take action, they had made an essential contribution to the commission of the offence of maliciously   obstructing road traffic. Some of them, having regard to their union duties, had even played a   “major”, if not “crucial”, role in the blockade. The Court observed that the applicants’ participation,   which had been neither purely incidental nor passive, had been a key component of the blockade   arrangements in place. Accordingly, the fact that they had not personally committed any acts of   violence or incited others to do so during the blockade could not suffice to conclude that there had   been no “reprehensible” conduct within the meaning of the Court’s case-law.   As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court noted that they had favoured dialogue for the reason   that the protestors’ determination and the situation on the bridge had rendered any police   intervention excessively hazardous. The Court could consider that they had attempted to balance   the competing interests at stake to ensure the peaceful conduct of the gathering and the safety of   the people.   Lastly, the Court specified that it was not indifferent to the use of criminal sanctions, which should   remain exceptional. Given, however, the breadth of the margin of appreciation afforded to the State   in the matter at hand, as well as the “reprehensible” conduct of which the applicants had been   accused and the proven danger that had resulted for both people and traffic, the applicants’   sentences could not be regarded as excessive in the circumstances of the case. They had been   3 determined individually, on the basis of each applicant’s degree of involvement in the events at   issue.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that, in convicting the applicants of maliciously obstructing traffic,   the domestic courts had based their decisions on an acceptable assessment of the facts and on   reasons which were relevant and sufficient. Thus, the national authorities had not exceeded their   margin of appreciation in relation to the subject matter. Since the interference complained of had   been “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 11 of the Convention, there   had been no violation in the present case.   Article 14: complaint made by six of the applicants   The Court considered that the factor taken into account by the Court of Appeal had been the specific   “role” that each of the six applicants had played in the commission of the offence and not their   union duties per se. The complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive   the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on   X (Twitter) @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4