Europe: Urgent need to protect the right to protest – ARTICLE 19

As the UN Human Rights Council discusses a new resolution on the right to freedom of assembly and association at its 56th session, ARTICLE 19 is deeply concerned that governments across Europe are increasingly employing strategies to restrict the right to protest and suppress public resistance. As people across Europe are increasingly organising around critical issues, including the climate emergency, protection of democracy and solidarity with Palestine, they have been met with harsh crackdowns. ARTICLE 19 calls on European states to reverse this trend and protect the right to protest, a cornerstone of democracy. We recall that under international human rights standards, states must respect, protect, and fulfil the right to protest. We also urge the Human Rights Council to ensure that the resolution on protest is updated to include strong standards on new and persisting challenges and successfully adopted by consensus, and for all governments to take steps to ensure its full implementation. 

With the 56th Session of the UN Human Rights Council underway, the delegations of Switzerland and Costa Rica are leading negotiations on a resolution on peaceful protests. This resolution, which is updated and adopted every two years, contains an increasingly robust set of international standards on how to upload the right to protest in law, policy and practice. However, much more needs to be done to ensure its implementation. 

ARTICLE 19 has closely monitored the turbulent socio-political landscape across Europe, highlighting significant restrictions on protests frequently enforced in the region. Our Global Free Expression Report 2024 (GxR) shows a troubling trend: over the past decade, 16 countries in Europe and Central Asia have witnessed a decline in the freedom of peaceful assembly. As civil society increasingly takes to the streets to oppose human rights violations and other existential threats, authorities respond with more dramatic and alarming measures. These include resorting to violence, imposing harsh laws, targeting activists and protesters with smear campaigns to denigrate them, and undermining resilience to ultimately silence dissent.  

Restrictive laws and crackdown on pro-democracy protests 

In several European countries, people have taken to the streets and vocally opposed concerning political decisions that threaten to derail their countries from a democratic path. For instance:  

• In Georgia, the passage of a controversial ‘foreign agents’ law that violates freedom of expression and freedom of association, and which is similar to one in Russia, has sparked massive protests. Protests and strong opposition against this law voiced by civil society and human rights defenders have been met with a draconian response from the police, resulting in a wave of arrests and excessive use of force. Numerous activists have been physically attacked by unidentified groups that are reported to have links to the government.   

• In Slovakia, where the polarisation in society intensified following an assassination attempt on Prime Minister Robert Fico, the parliament has approved a series of restrictive laws and measures. These include a replacement of the public service broadcaster RTVS and its management with a politicised entity, and the so-called ‘lex assassination’. The new legislation would expand the restrictions on right to protest, such as prohibition on gatherings around buildings where heads of state, government officials, and courts reside or work. The bill grants municipalities broad powers to prohibit assemblies on various grounds, such as potential clashes between participants or groups. This legislation has sparked new protests, adding to several that have occurred in the past months. 

ARTICLE 19 urges the authorities of Georgia and Slovakia to scrap these problematic laws.  Any restrictions on the right to protest must fully comply with international human rights standards and be applied in non-discriminatory manner.  

Restrictions on environmental protests

As the impact of climate change becomes impossible to ignore, people are rallying to enforce concrete changes to mitigate the damage. In the lead-up to the European elections this June, campaign groups in 127 cities across 14 countries held three days of protests, demanding urgent action from lawmakers to address the escalating climate crisis. Activists and protesters are also increasingly choosing more direct and disruptive methods of protest to convey the sense of urgency, which is met with stark and often disproportional responses from authorities. 

There have been numerous instances in which protester have faced police violence, arrests, criminal prosecution, and surveillance. Some authorities labelled particular campaigning groups as hooligans or eco-terrorists who are endangering public security. This rhetoric complements the moves to adopt harsh laws that curtail the right to protest. For example:  

• In the UK, although climate activists celebrated a landmark ruling when the Supreme Court quashed the oil well plan near Gatwick Airport in June, the situation for environmental activism in the country remains dire. Around 120 climate activists have been imprisoned in the UK to this date, with Marcus Decker and Morgan Trowland receiving the longest sentences in the country’s modern history – 2 years and 7 months’ imprisonment. The concerns about the harassment of environmental activists have been also previously raised by the UN special rapporteur on environmental defenders Michel Forst. Additionally, the UK employs civil injunctions to ban protests in certain areas, including major roads and highways. Breaching these injunctions can result in up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.  

• In Germany, five members of Letzte Generation (an environmental movement also known as Last Generation, active in several European countries) were accused of ‘forming a criminal organisation’. The homes of several activists were raided, and their phones confiscated.  

• In France, Minister of Interior Gérald Darmanin initiated a proceedings to dissolve the environmental collective Les Soulevements de la Terre, accusing its activists of ‘participating in violence’ and labelling them ‘eco-terrorists’. Though, in November 2023, the Conseil d’État (the supreme court for administrative justice) overturned this decision, tensions remain high. France confirmed the use of an anti-terrorism unit to question several climate activists. In addition, the authorities cited concerns about ‘jeopardising public peace’ to justify placing environmentalist Julien Le Guet under police surveillance. 

• In the Netherlands, police used water cannons to disperse roadblock protests on a highway. The clashes resulted in the arrest of more than 1,500 people. Seven climate activists were convicted of sedition in response to their social media posts calling people to join the demonstration.   

• In Poland, Last Generation activists reported that their actions, including multiple blockades of bridges in Warsaw, resulted in over 70 fines amounting to PLN 35,000 (approximately EUR 8,000) 

ARTICLE 19 finds these and other restrictions extremely troubling. We are concerned that instead of genuinely committing to combat climate emergency, governments are focused on silencing environmental defenders and making them scapegoats.
We call on European governments to comply with their obligations under international human rights standards and refrain from prosecutions of peaceful protesters. They must facilitate the right to protest, remove unnecessary restrictions and protect protesters.  

Restrictions on protests in solidarity with Palestine

As Israel continues its relentless bombardment of Gaza, there have been numerous protests calling for an immediate ceasefire. Students have set up encampments on campuses in numerous major European cities and have also been demanding that academic institutions break ties with and divest from businesses linked to Israel. While university authorities have permitted some student camps to continue their actions or to peacefully bring them to an end, such as in Ireland, Spain, or Belgium, other protests have met with stark responses from law enforcement during their actions. For instance: 

• In the Netherlands, riot police armed with batons have clashed with pro-Palestinian student protestes at the University of Amsterdam on multiple occasions. On 6 May, the university reported trespassing and vandalism and requested police intervention. The police were filmed beating protesters and pulling down their tents after they refused to leave the campus. More than 160 people were arrested on this day alone. The police stated that the action was necessary to ‘restore order’, citing the protests turning violent.  

• In Germany, President Guenter Ziegler of the Berlin Free University declared that ‘an occupation is not acceptable‘ on campus, responding to encampments erected by students on university premises. Law enforcement deployed pepper spray against some protesters, and police were reportedly observed removing several students by force. The authorities confirmed arrests for incitement and trespassing. Additionally, the university has initiated multiple criminal complaints, citing instances of antisemitic remarks and property damage.  

ARTICLE 19 underscores that any restrictions on expression on campus must comply with international standards, which provide limited and precise instances where such restrictions are permissible. Additionally, potential cases of incitement to discrimination, violence, and hostility can be sanctioned only if additional criteria, such as the six-part test, are met. We stress that expressions of solidarity with Palestinians cannot be equated with either antisemitism or support for terrorism. Last but not least, we remind the relevant authorities that universities and academia must remain vibrant spaces where the exchange of diverse views, debate, and intercultural dialogue are encouraged and can thrive. University leaders must lead this essential conversation and focus on de-escalating tensions. Using force and involving law enforcement to pacify protesting students should be a last resort.  

ARTICLE 19 reiterates that dissent is vital to protect democracy. The failure or unwillingness to ensure the right of peaceful assembly can be perceived as an act of repression.  International standards allow for restrictions on protest only under limited and narrowly defined circumstances. Protests should be treated as a key component of civic space, not a threat to public order – even if the character of the protest causes inconvenience or disruption.

We also call on the Human Rights Council to ensure that the new resolution on protest is updated to reflect new challenges and adopted by consensus, and call on all governments to do more to implement the commitments of this resolution.