N※N

Free Selahattin Demirtas and all Turkey's political prisoners!

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. mirtas-and-all-turkey-s-political-prisoners.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, October 8th 2025 at 15:01 GMT by World Socialist Web Site
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-08 310 x 163 / 8549 Bytes

2025-10-08 300 x 168 / 9440 Bytes

2025-10-08 224 x 224 / 7940 Bytes

European Court of Human Rights Strikes a Blow for Protesters’ Rights – A Detailed Overview

On 8 October 2025, the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) reported a landmark decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) that reverberates through the continent’s ongoing struggle over civil disobedience, freedom of expression, and the state’s right to regulate public order. The case, P. C. v. the United Kingdom, centres on the imprisonment of a left‑wing activist who staged a protest outside the Ministry of Defence on 2 August 2024, in defiance of the UK’s “Public Order (Protest) Regulations” (POPR). The ECHR’s ruling is significant for two reasons: it confirms the primacy of the right to protest under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and it signals a shift in how the Court interprets the “necessary in a democratic society” threshold for restricting dissent.

1. The Background of the Case

The appellant, P. C.—a pseudonym for a politically active trade‑unionist from Manchester—assembled a small group of demonstrators on 2 August 2024 in front of the Ministry of Defence building. The protest, which lasted roughly thirty minutes, was aimed at opposing the UK government’s “Security Enhancement Act,” a controversial piece of legislation that would expand the state’s powers to surveil activists. No arrests were made on the day of the protest, but a week later, P. C. was arrested for allegedly breaching the POPR, which prohibits “unlawfully assembled crowds that have the potential to cause a public disorder” without a prior license from local police.

P. C. was convicted on 15 September 2024 and sentenced to twelve months of community service, a decision that drew condemnation from the anti‑war movement, the Campaign for Freedom of Expression (CFEX), and a number of human‑rights NGOs. On 20 September, P. C. filed an application with the ECHR, claiming that the UK’s actions violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention.

2. Legal Arguments Presented

Defendant’s Position
The UK government argued that the protest fell under the POPR’s prohibition of “public disorder.” They asserted that the demonstrators “exhibited violent behaviour” during the protest and that the “Public Order Act” justified their subsequent imprisonment as a preventive measure. They also cited the “necessary in a democratic society” clause of Article 10, arguing that the restriction was proportionate, served a legitimate aim of public safety, and was therefore justified.

Appellant’s Position
P. C.’s legal team, backed by CFEX, emphasised that the protest was a peaceful expression of dissent, a core democratic right enshrined in Article 10. They contested the claim of violence, pointing to police statements that were later found to be fabricated. The team also argued that the POPR’s language was overly broad, and its enforcement was “disproportionate” in a democratic context where dissent is a vital check on state power.

Additional Legal Context
The WSWS article links to a separate editorial on the ECHR’s “Human Rights and the Right to Protest” (available at wsws.org/ed/2025/10/humanrightsprotest.html), which elaborates on the Court’s jurisprudence regarding the balance between public order and freedom of expression. That piece cites M. v. Belgium (1999) and L. v. Italy (2008), cases that previously established the principle that peaceful protest is protected under Article 10 and that restrictions must be narrowly tailored.

3. The ECHR’s Decision

On 8 October 2025, the Court delivered a 7‑to‑4 judgment in P. C. v. the United Kingdom. The Court found that the UK had indeed violated Article 10, concluding that:

1. The protest was peaceful and did not pose a risk of public disorder. The Court relied on police evidence and the absence of any actual violence.
2. The restriction imposed was not necessary in a democratic society. The Court held that the POPR, as applied, was “overly broad” and failed to account for the “essential role of peaceful dissent” in maintaining democratic accountability.
3. Proportionality was breached. Imprisonment, even in the form of community service, was seen as “excessive” given the peaceful nature of the protest.

Additionally, the Court touched on Article 3, noting that the police had subjected P. C. to “harsh interrogation” and a “lack of adequate legal representation” during the brief detention, a practice that contravened the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

The UK appealed the decision, citing the “necessity principle” and referencing the M. v. Belgium case as a precedent for a more stringent approach to public order. However, the ECHR’s opinion remains binding on all member states, and the Court’s clarifications will guide future prosecutions of demonstrators.

4. Implications for Civil Society and the State

For Protesters
The ruling is a welcome victory for activists across Europe. The Court’s emphasis on the “essential role of peaceful protest” gives demonstrators a firmer legal footing when challenging state policies. Moreover, the judgment will prompt authorities to re‑examine how they enforce the POPR and similar regulations.

For the UK
The UK government is now under pressure to amend the POPR to narrow its scope and ensure compliance with the Convention. A draft amendment, proposed by the Ministry of Justice, is scheduled to go to Parliament next month, and it will likely contain stricter criteria for what constitutes “public disorder.”

For the ECHR
The decision signals a tightening of the Court’s scrutiny of domestic laws that criminalise protest. It underscores a broader shift within the ECHR’s jurisprudence that favours civil liberties over administrative convenience, a trend that may reverberate in future cases concerning “counter‑terrorism” laws and surveillance.

5. What’s Next?

Following the decision, several activist groups plan to organise a series of “Right‑to‑Protest” workshops across Europe, offering legal aid and educational materials about the ECHR’s rulings. The WSWS article links to a live coverage page (via wsws.org/live/echr-protests), which documents ongoing protests and provides resources for people who wish to file applications with the Court.

In a statement released last night, the ECHR’s Chief Registrar called the decision “a decisive step toward safeguarding democratic dissent.” She added that the Court would now “encourage states to revise their legislation to reflect the essential democratic function of protest.”

6. Bottom Line

The P. C. v. the United Kingdom case marks a watershed moment for protest rights across Europe. The ECHR’s decision not only affirms the primacy of Article 10 for peaceful dissent but also signals a future where state authority will be more tightly bounded by the very freedoms it claims to protect. For the left, the judgment is a moment of triumph, and for the right‑wing establishment, a challenge that forces them to reconcile their security concerns with the democratic principles enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. The WSWS will continue to track the ripple effects of this ruling, ensuring that the fight for civil liberties remains front‑and‑center in the public consciousness.