The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled on Tuesday that Germany violated the rights of a protester who was convicted for wearing a self-made plastic visor during a demonstration in 2015. It found that they violated the protester’s rights to freedom of assembly, protected under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and that the intended aim of preventing disorder and violence did not justify the charge against him.

The applicant, Ruß, had participated in protests against the opening of the new European Central Bank Headquarters in the German city of Frankfurt. Like many others, he wore a self-built visor made from a piece of rubber and adorned with the words “Smash Capitalism.” The protests, organized by the Blockupy alliance and involving more than 17,000 individuals, were mostly peaceful on one side, but were punctuated by violence on the other. Subsequently, national courts had convicted and fined the protester with 400€ for breaching a general prohibition on “protective weapons” (Schutzwaffen) at public outdoor assemblies. After the conviction was upheld by the national instances, Ruß brought the case before the ECHR and claimed violations of his rights of freedom of expression and assembly under Article 7, on the principle of No Punishment without law.

In its judgment, the court dismissed the latter two complaints, as the case was not about the statement on the foil, which was not subject to prosecution, and the interpretation of the German Public Assembly and Possessions Act was not unforeseeable or arbitrary to include his construction as a protective weapon. This was defined in the documentation of the legislative process as encompassing all devices such as helmets or self-built armors  “that are used for defence against attacks and are usually given this purpose at the time of manufacture.” However, the court argued that the national instances had not assessed or justified why the plastic visor would constitute a threat to public safety, which is a necessary condition to exclude an exemption of objects to qualify as Schutzwaffen under Article 27 of the law. As such, the court ruled a criminal charge was not necessary and proportionate in a democratic society and resulted in a violation of Article 11 of the Convention.