ASSEDEL’s third-party intervention in Tütenk v. Türkiye (App. No. 6550/25), developed in collaboration with the University of Urbino Carlo Bo and the University of Bologna, proposes a systematic analysis of the interpretative principles governing Article 11 ECHR (freedom of peaceful assembly) as applied to student protests, with particular attention to the limits of criminalisation.
The intervention develops four theoretical axes. First, it establishes that obstructive or disruptive assemblies remain protected by Article 11 if devoid of violent intentions, even when they block access to university facilities: the disruption caused does not equate to violence.
Second, it articulates the principle of individual responsibility, affirming that participants cannot be held collectively liable for the acts of others. Third, it contends that protective clothing and politically controversial slogans do not constitute, per se, evidence of violent intent. Finally, it qualifies the obligation of national courts to conduct an explicit and substantive balancing of rights: when severe criminal sanctions—including custodial sentences of several years—are imposed on students participating in protests, particularly rigorous justification is required, accounting for the deterrent effect on the future exercise of Convention rights.
The intervention draws upon consolidated authorities—Grand Chamber case-law in Kudrevičius and Laurijsen, and international standards from OSCE/ODIHR and the UN Human Rights Committee—to establish general parameters for applying the proportionality test in cases restricting freedom of peaceful assembly.
Read Full Article Here