TF, 13.11.2025, 6B_1173/2023
Facts
A climate activist participated in two unauthorized demonstrations organized by Extinction Rebellion in Zurich. The first, which took place on June 20, 2020, on the Quaibrücke, resulted in the blocking of vehicular traffic and the suspension of tram services for over three hours. The second, which occurred on October 4, 2021, on Uraniastrasse, also blocked traffic, necessitating a large-scale diversion for several hours. In both instances, the police intervened after tolerating the gatherings for a period of time and ordered the protesters to leave. The appellant, who was a participant rather than an organizer, did not comply and had to be escorted away by police. The cantonal authorities found her guilty of multiple counts of coercion (Art. 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code) for both demonstrations and of obstruction of public services (Art. 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code) for the first. She was sentenced to a suspended fine of 30 daily penalty units. She has appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, citing, among other things, a violation of her rights to freedom of expression and assembly.
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for the alleged offenses and weighs them against fundamental freedoms.
- Obstruction of public services (Art. 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code) : This offense protects the public interest in the uninterrupted provision of essential services. Regarding public transport, the disruption must reach a certain level of intensity and duration. A simple diversion is insufficient; there must be a significant disruption of service, such as major delays or the interruption of multiple lines. The offense is intentional, with indirect intent (dolus eventualis) being sufficient.
- Coercion (Art. 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code) : This offense protects an individual's freedom of decision and action. The concept of "otherwise restricting one's freedom of action" must be interpreted restrictively. The intensity of the coercion must be comparable to that of violence or the threat of serious harm. Mere inconvenience or a slight detour in an urban setting is not enough to constitute coercion. Furthermore, the act must be unlawful, which, in the context of political demonstrations, requires a balancing of interests that takes into account the rights to freedom of expression (Art. 16 of the Constitution, Art. 10 of the ECHR) and freedom of assembly (Art. 22 of the Constitution, Art. 11 of the ECHR).
- Freedom of expression and assembly : These rights are not absolute. A criminal conviction constitutes an interference that must have a legal basis, pursue a legitimate aim (security, public order, protection of the rights of others), and be proportionate. Demonstrations on public roads are subject to authorization. Although authorities must show a degree of tolerance toward peaceful unauthorized gatherings, this tolerance has limits. A criminal conviction is permissible when protesters intentionally and significantly disrupt daily life, and when this disruption exceeds the inconveniences inherent in the normal exercise of these freedoms.
Application to the case at hand
The Federal Supreme Court upholds the decision of the lower court.
- Regarding the obstruction of public services : The disruption of tram traffic on the Quaibrücke (five lines interrupted for several hours on a central artery) reached the intensity required by Art. 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code. By participating in a blockade on such a thoroughfare, the appellant accepted, at the very least through indirect intent, that tram traffic would be interrupted. The conviction on this point is therefore upheld.
- Regarding coercion : For both demonstrations, the intensity of the traffic obstruction was sufficient to constitute coercion. The blockade of the Quaibrücke paralyzed traffic, while the blockade of Uraniastrasse necessitated a "large-scale" diversion lasting several hours. The Federal Supreme Court deems these acts unlawful and disproportionate. The blocking of traffic and the resulting disruptions were not merely an incidental consequence of the unauthorized demonstrations, but the very goal of both actions. The protesters could have chosen locations or methods that caused less disruption to promote their cause.
- Regarding fundamental freedoms The conviction constitutes a justified restriction on the appellant's freedom of expression and assembly. It is based on a legal foundation (Articles 181 and 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code) and pursues legitimate objectives (public order, road safety, and the protection of the rights of others). The restriction is deemed proportionate because the purpose of the actions was to deliberately and excessively disrupt daily life. The police demonstrated initial tolerance (30 to 40 minutes) before intervening, allowing the protesters to exercise their rights. Finally, the sentence imposed (a suspended monetary penalty) is considered moderate and does not constitute a disproportionate infringement.
Claims for compensation regarding allegedly unlawful detention and body searches are also rejected, as the Federal Supreme Court found that the measures taken were in accordance with the law.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the protester's appeal. It upholds her conviction for obstruction of public services (Article 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code) and coercion (Article 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code), resulting in a suspended sentence of 30 daily penalty units.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Justine Arnal and Camille Perrier Depeursinge
