RĂDULESCU DOBROGEA AND CIUREA v. ROMANIA

Both cases involve fines imposed through administrative-offence proceedings after the fact for having taken part in a protest/counter-demonstration, and the Court's finding of no violation turned on the interference being 'necessary in a democratic society', the same test invoked by the Romanian County Court to justify the fine against Mr Rădulescu Dobrogea.

This passage identifies the second, third and fourth applicants' complaint as arising from 'administrative-offence proceedings conducted against them in connection with their participation in a series of protests', the same factual category (post-event fines for protest participation) as the fines against Mr Rădulescu Dobrogea and Mr Ciurea.

Here the police 'did not immediately disperse the gathering' and only stopped some drivers for traffic and COVID-related offences, whereas in the present case gendarmes ordered the applicants to leave the counter-demonstration area and fined them specifically for refusing to comply with that order under Law no. 60/1991.

Karchava concerns the interruption of a solo protest and a single administrative conviction, not a counter-demonstration held alongside a separately notified rival public assembly with mutual gendarme-organiser agreements as occurred here, and the passage contains no Court assessment to compare outcomes.

The Serbian-Chinese case involves an advance prohibition preventing planned protests from taking place at all on public-safety grounds, whereas the present case involves a fine imposed after the applicants had already participated in the counter-demonstration, and again no Court assessment is available in the passage.

This passage is part of the same Rainbow Mission proceedings whose ultimate holding (no violation given necessity) matches the fact pattern of fines for protest participation at issue here, even though it records the Government's submission rather than the Court's own reasoning.

This introduction describes a prohibition of protests 'scheduled to take place on 17 and 18 June 2016' issued in advance on public-safety grounds, unlike the after-the-event fine imposed on participants in an unauthorised counter-demonstration in the present case.

This introduction concerns 'the interruption of his solo demonstration', a single-person protest, rather than a group counter-demonstration occurring alongside a separately notified congress as in the present case.