The notion of “assembly” covers a wide range of different types of gatherings, whether in public or private places, and whether static or moving. Examples of gatherings that international courts and mechanisms have held to be assemblies include demonstrations 1See, for example, Alekseev v. Russian Federation, Human Rights Committee, Views of 25 October 2013, UN Doc. CCPR/C/109/D/1873/2009 and Galstyan v. Armenia, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 November 2007.and counter-demonstrations,2See, for example, Faber v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 24 July 2012 para. 43; Ollinger v. Austria. ECtHR, Judgement of 29 September 2006 paras. 43-45; AComHPR, Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, para. 97.pickets,3[1] See, for example, Galina Youbko v. Belarus, Human Rights Committee, Views of 24 April 2014, UN Doc. CCPR/C/110/D/1903/2009; Shmushkovych v. Ukraine, ECtHR, Judgment of 14 November 2013. processions,4See, for example, Christians against Racism and Fascism v. the United Kingdom, EComHR, Decision of 16 July 1980.rallies,5See, for example, Kasparov v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 11 October 2016.sits-in,6See, for example, Lucas v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Judgement of 18 March 2003; Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015.roadblocks,7See, for example, Lucas v. United Kingdom, ECtHR, Judgement of 18 March 2003; Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015.gatherings or meetings in privately-owned places,8See, for example, Kudrevicius and Others V. Lithuania, ECtHR, Judgement of 15 October 2015, para. 91; Emin Huseynov v. Azerbaijan,ECtHR, Judgment of 7 May 2015; AComHPR, Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, para. 69.occupations of buildings,9See Cissé v. France, ECtHR, Judgment of 9 April 2002; Tuskia and Others v. Georgia, ECtHR, Judgement of 11 October 2018; Annenkov & Others v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgement of 24 October 2017.“walkabouts,”10Navalnyy v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 November 2018, para. 108 (“Having regard to the purpose and the format of the ‘walkabouts’, namely the expression of personal opinions by a group of people, the Court considers that they fell within the notion of ‘assembly’ contained in Article 11.”). The ECtHR defined a “walkabout” as “an informal gathering whereby activists peacefully met at a public venue to discuss current affairs.” Para. 19.“flash mobs,”11Obote v. Russia, ECtHR, Judgment of 19 November 2019, para. 35. The ECtHR quotes the definition of “flash mob” offered by The Cambridge Dictionary, i.e., “‘a group of people who arrange, by email or mobile phone, to come together in a place at the same time, do something funny or silly, and then leave.’” Para. 6 & n. 1.and the public reading of press statements.12See, for example, Oya Ataman v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 5 December 2006; Ogru v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 17 October 2017.
The UN Special Rapporteur has provided the following definition, which has also been embraced by the AComHPR’s Study Group on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa:
An “assembly” is an intentional and temporary gathering in a private or public space for a specific purpose. It therefore includes demonstrations, inside meetings, strikes, processions, rallies or even sits-in.13UN Human Rights Council, First Thematic Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, UN Doc. A/HRC/20/27, 21 May 2012, para. 24; AComHPR, Report of the Study Group on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa, 2014, p. 25, para. 18. See AComHPR, Guidelines on Freedom of Assembly and Association in Africa, para. 3.
The ECtHR stresses that the term “assembly” should be broadly understood:
The right to freedom of assembly is a fundamental right in a democratic society … Thus, it should not be interpreted restrictively. As such this right covers both private meetings and meetings in public thoroughfares as well as static meetings and public processions; in addition, it can be exercised by individuals and those organising the assembly.14Budaházy v. Hungary, ECtHR, Judgment of 15 December 2015, para. 33. See also, among others, Djavit An v. Turkey, ECtHR, Judgment of 20 February 2003, para. 56 and Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, ECtHR, Grand Chamber Judgment of 15 October 2015, para. 80.
The OSCE-ODIHR Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly use similar wording, but add that an assembly must have a “common expressive purpose”:
For the purposes of the Guidelines, an assembly means the intentional and temporary presence of a number of individuals in a public place for a common expressive purpose.
This definition recognizes that, although particular forms of assembly may raise specific regulatory issues, all types of peaceful assembly – both static and moving assemblies, as well as those that take place on publicly or privately owned premises or in enclosed structures – deserve protection.15OSCE-ODIHR and Venice Commission, Guidelines on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, 2nd edn, 2010, Guideline 1.2.
And the UN Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 37 states that “[t]he right of peaceful assembly protects the non-violent gathering by persons for specific purposes, principally expressive ones.”16UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (article 21), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, 17 September 2020, para. 4.The General Comment further states:
Article 21 of the Covenant protects peaceful assemblies wherever they take place: outdoors, indoors and online; in public and private spaces; or a combination thereof. Such assemblies may take many forms, including demonstrations, protests, meetings, processions, rallies, sit-ins, candlelit vigils and flash mobs. They are protected under article 21 whether they are stationary, such as pickets, or mobile, such as processions or marches.17UN Human Rights Committee, General comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (article 21), UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/37, 17 September 2020, para. 6.
