In Serbian-Chinese Friendship Society FDH v. Serbia, (ECHR, June 2, 2026), the European Court of Human Rights held that the Serbian government violated the right to peaceably assemble protected by Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it banned a planned demonstration to protest the Chinese persecution of Falun Gong. The demonstration was planned to coincide with the visit to Serbia of China's president. The court said in part:
71. ... [T]here is no evidence in the case file that the relevant Serbian authorities had carried out any specific security assessments before deciding to prohibit the public gatherings planned by the applicant society.... Instead, they merely referred to the anticipated presence of a significant number of Chinese nationals in support of the visiting President of the People’s Republic of China. As the applicant society is an organisation banned in that country, the authorities concluded that its activities could be expected to incite conflict between opposing groups of demonstrators. This, in turn, carried a risk to public safety and property.... In those circumstances, it is the Court’s view that the alleged risk of confrontation between the two groups of demonstrators remained speculative at best...
72. ... [T]he Ministry of Internal Affairs stated ... that a spontaneous gathering of Serbian and Chinese nationals was expected to be held during the official visit of the President of the People’s Republic of China with the aim of expressing their support for him.... The Ministry highlighted that Falun Gong had a significant global presence, making it impossible to estimate the number of expected participants in the gathering. Such uncertainty surrounding the event made adequate preparation difficult and the Ministry concluded that allowing it to proceed could carry a risk of confrontation likely to endanger public safety and property....The Court, however, considers that the wording of the prohibition orders, in particular, demonstrates that the relevant authorities’ decision‑making process was based on mere conjecture....
73. Even if there had been a genuine risk of violent confrontation between the protestors and counter‑protestors, this, in and of itself, should not have resulted in the decisions to prohibit the planned public gatherings, without the authorities having first complied with their positive obligation to try to ensure the peaceful conduct of the planned events and the safety of all persons concerned....
74.... Indeed, if every probability of tension and heated exchange between opposing groups during a demonstration were to warrant its prohibition, society would be faced with being deprived of the opportunity of hearing differing views on any question which offends the sensibilities of others.... It is understood, in this context, that even where some restrictions on planned public gatherings might be warranted, they should still, in so far as possible, allow participants to assemble at a location which is, because it is within sight or sound of the target audience or for some other reason, important to their purpose...
