Bodson and Others v. Belgium

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. 

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. 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.

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 European Court of Human Rights 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 European 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 European 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 European Court of Human Rights 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. Therefore, 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 judgment is only available in French. In the meantime, a press release in English issued by the Registrar of the European Court of Human Rights can be found in attachment.