issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 147 (2022)  
03.05.2022  
Fine for protest against mining of precious metals in UNESCO world heritage  
site: violation of the Convention  
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Bumbeș v. Romania (application no. 18079/15) the  
European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) interpreted in the light of Article 11 (freedom of  
assembly and association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.  
The case concerned the fining of Mr Bumbeș for taking part in a protest against proposed gold- and  
silver-mining activity in the Roșia Montană area. He along with three others had handcuffed  
themselves to one of the entrance barriers of the main Government building and displayed signs.  
The Court found in particular that the domestic courts had not focussed on the issue of public  
speech on a matter of public interest and had not duly considered the extent of the “disruption of  
ordinary life” caused by the protest, instead looking primarily at the lack of prior notification of the  
protest. The resulting fine had had a chilling effect on such speech, and overall had not been  
“necessary in a democratic society”.  
A legal summary of this case will be available in the Court’s database HUDOC (link).  
Principal facts  
The applicant, Mihail Liviu Bumbeș, is a Romanian national who was born in 1981 and lives in Curtea  
de Argeș (Romania).  
Mr Bumbeș is a known activist and a founding member and president of the Spiritual Militia Civic  
Movement Association (Asociaţia Mișcarea Civică Miliţia Spirituală).  
Mr Bumbeș took part in the Salvaţi Roșia Montană campaign, which was a protest movement  
against proposed gold and silver mining, which would have involved the uses of cyanide, in Roșia  
Montană, an area in north-western Romania which has since been named a UNESCO world heritage  
site.  
On 28 August 2013 Mr Bumbeș and three other protesters handcuffed themselves to one of the  
entrance barriers of the main Government building, where they held up signs. The protest was  
filmed by an acquaintance. The protesters refused to leave when asked to do so by a gendarme.  
Eventually the police cut the rails to which they were attached and placed the protestors, including  
Mr Bumbeș, in police cars.  
During interviews in the recording, the protestors made it clear that they intended to raise  
awareness and to actually do something concrete around the mining issue, given that earlier  
petitions had been ignored.  
1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery,  
any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges  
considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final  
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.  
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.  
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.  
Mr Bumbeș was fined 500 Romanian lei (about 113 euros) at the police station for breaching certain  
norms of social coexistence and the public order and peace (Law no. 61/1991). According to the  
police he acknowledged his actions orally but refused to sign the police report.  
In September 2013 Mr Bumbeș challenged the fine in court. He stated that even if it had been  
necessary to issue a sanction, the actions had been miscategorised by the police and should have  
fallen under Law no. 60/1991 on the organisation and conduct of public gatherings, as expressing  
opinion freely could not be an antisocial act. He argued, citing the Court’s case-law, that  
spontaneous protest was protected by the right to freedom of assembly, and pointed out that his  
protest had been peaceful.  
The Bucharest District Court dismissed the challenge. It held that the police report was lawful,  
Mr Bumbeș’s actions had been correctly categorised, and the sanction had been in accordance with  
Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association) of the European Convention.  
Mr Bumbeș appealed, arguing, among other things, that the District Court had not examined the  
video-recording of the protest or his arguments about freedom of expression. The Bucharest County  
Court upheld the first-instance judgment, adding that accepting Mr Bumbeș’s arguments regarding  
categorisation of the offence would mean that many instances of breach of the peace would go  
unpunished. It held that protest had to be conducted in accordance with the law, meaning that  
three-days’ notice should have been given in this case.  
That judgment was final.  
Parliament later voted down the bill to allow mining in Roșia Montană following widespread  
protests.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Articles 10 (freedom of expression) and 11 (freedom of assembly and association) the  
applicant complained of the sanction imposed on him by the courts.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 March 2015.  
The Open Society Justice Initiative and Greenpeace Romania were given leave to intervene as third  
parties.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria), President,  
Tim Eicke (the United Kingdom),  
Faris Vehabović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),  
Iulia Antoanella Motoc (Romania),  
Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),  
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra),  
Jolien Schukking (the Netherlands),  
and also Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
The Court reiterated that freedom of expression constituted one of the essential foundations of a  
democratic society, which included not only the ideas expressed, but also how they are expressed.  
Article 11, however, only protected the right to peaceful protest. It stated that freedom of  
expression and freedom of peaceful assembly were closely linked in this case.  
2
The parties disagreed as to whether the fine had constituted an interference with the applicant’s  
right to freedom of expression. The Court held that there had been an interference, given that the  
fine had not just concerned his conduct, but his attempt to spread a message.  
The applicant contested the legal qualification of the incident, stating that it should have come  
under Law no. 60/1991 rather than Article 3 § 2 of Law no. 61/1991. The resulting fine had thus been  
unlawful. The Court reiterated that its power to review compliance with domestic law was limited  
and so it would just examine whether the effects of the domestic courts’ interpretation had been  
compatible with the Convention, furthermore ruling that the two laws in question were  
complementary and could be read in conjunction with each other.  
The Court observed that by virtue of these two Laws, any public gathering without prior notification  
could be declared unlawful. That clearly included the applicant’s protest. The Court was also  
satisfied that the legitimate aim of preventing public disorder had informed the relevant fine in this  
case.  
It determined that the actions of the applicant and his fellow protestors had been to draw the  
attention of the public and officials to the Roșia Montană mining project, which had been of general  
interest. There was little scope under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention for restrictions on political  
speech on questions of public interest. The applicant had been given little time to express his views,  
and the courts had dealt with the matter as a prior-notification question principally, and had not  
examined the actual disruption the applicant had caused and thus had not balanced the right to  
freedom of expression with the need to maintain public order. Effectively, the enforcement of rules  
governing public assemblies had become an end in itself in this case.  
Lastly, the Court stated that the fine imposed had had a chilling effect on public speech.  
Given the above, the Court ruled that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of  
expression had not been “necessary in a democratic society”, leading to a violation of Article 10  
interpreted in the light of Article 11.  
Just satisfaction (Article 41)  
The Court held that Romania was to pay the applicant 113 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary  
damage, EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,872 in respect of costs and  
expenses.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,  
judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive  
the Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on Twitter  
@ECHR_CEDH.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.  
Neil Connolly (tel : + 33 3 90 21 48 05)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Denis Lambert (tel : + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Inci Ertekin (tel : + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
Jane Swift (tel : + 33 3 88 41 29 04)  
3
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member  
States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.  
4