Coercion, obstruction of public services, and the freedoms of assembly and expression: Blocking a major road by climate activists

TF, 02.26.2026, 6B_830/2023

Facts

On June 20, 2020, an unauthorized climate protest organized by the group "Extinction Rebellion" took place on the Quaibrücke bridge in Zurich. Approximately 350 people initially participated. For safety reasons, the police closed the bridge to road and tram traffic, leading to detours and the suspension of five tram lines.

The police initially tolerated the protest for about 40 minutes before ordering the demonstrators to clear the road. Following the refusal of some activists, the police proceeded to conduct identity checks.

The appellant, A.________, a member of the "Doctors for XR" group, participated in the protest. From 1:06 p.m. to 1:47 p.m., she stood on the road, holding a banner with others that read "government inaction kills." She did not participate in the "sit-in" and voluntarily submitted to the police check.

Acquitted in the first instance by the Zurich District Court, she was found guilty of coercion (Art. 181 SCC) and obstruction of public services (Art. 239 SCC) on appeal by the Zurich Cantonal Court, which sentenced her to a suspended fine of 10 daily penalty units of 100 francs each. She is appealing this decision to the Federal Supreme Court, requesting her acquittal.

Legal Analysis

The Federal Supreme Court is reviewing the conviction in light of the alleged offenses and the fundamental rights invoked.

1. Obstruction of public services (Art. 239 para. 1 SCC): This offense is committed by anyone who intentionally obstructs, disrupts, or endangers the operation of a public transport company. The protected legal interest is the community's interest in the uninterrupted provision of these services. Case law requires that the disruption reach a certain level of intensity and duration. A simple bus route detour is not sufficient; actual disruption of service must be demonstrated, such as significant delays for users affecting a substantial number of vehicles.
2. Coercion (Art. 181 SCC): Coercion is committed by anyone who, by using violence, threats, or otherwise restricting a person's freedom of action, compels them to perform, omit, or endure an act. The "restriction of freedom of action" must clearly exceed the threshold of what is socially tolerated and be comparable in intensity to violence or a serious threat. For road blockades, a minor detour is not enough to constitute coercion. The offense is only punishable if it is unlawful, which, in the context of political actions, requires a balancing of interests between the fundamental rights of the protesters and the rights of the affected third parties.
3. Freedom of expression and assembly (Art. 16 and 22 Cst. ; Art. 10 and 11 ECHR): These fundamental freedoms are central to a democracy. They include the right to organize demonstrations in public spaces (increased use), which may be subject to a permit requirement. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Federal Supreme Court, authorities must show a "certain degree of tolerance" toward peaceful demonstrations, even those that are unauthorized. However, this tolerance does not grant criminal immunity. A criminal conviction is permissible if protesters intentionally and excessively disrupt daily life and the legitimate activities of others, going beyond the unavoidable inconveniences associated with the normal exercise of these freedoms. Behavior deliberately aimed at causing major disruption does not enjoy the same level of protection.

Application to the specific case

The Federal Supreme Court rejects the appellant's arguments and upholds the decision of the lower court.

1. Regarding the facts and intent: The Federal Supreme Court finds that the lower court's assessment of the evidence was not arbitrary. The argument that the appellant was acting as medical personnel and had received police permission to remain was not deemed credible. Furthermore, the Court holds that the appellant, by actively participating in the blocking of the road beyond the period of tolerance, was aware that her actions were causing a major traffic disruption and accepted this outcome (acting at least with eventual intent). The fact that the police physically closed the bridge is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the protesters' actions.
2. Commission of offenses:
   1. Obstruction of public services: The blocking of the Quaibrücke, a vital hub for the Zurich public transport network, resulted in the complete interruption of five tram lines for several hours. This disruption, due to its duration, scale, and location, clearly reaches the level of intensity required by Art. 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code.
   2. Coercion: The blockade caused "considerable traffic chaos," significant delays, and traffic jams for a large number of motorists. This obstruction goes far beyond a mere inconvenience and reaches the intensity of criminally relevant coercion. The act is deemed unlawful because the demonstration was unauthorized and the method used (total blockage of a major thoroughfare) was disproportionate. The protesters could have chosen less disruptive locations to express their message.
3. Examination under fundamental freedoms: The conviction constitutes a restriction on the appellant's freedom of expression and assembly. However, this restriction is deemed justified and proportionate.
   1. It is based on a legal foundation (Art. 181 and 239 of the Swiss Criminal Code).
   2. It serves legitimate interests: public safety, the maintenance of order, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others (road users and public transport passengers).
   3. It is necessary and proportionate: the authorities showed tolerance by allowing the demonstration to proceed for 40 minutes. The conviction does not penalize participation in an unauthorized demonstration per se, but rather the act of deliberately causing a serious and excessive disruption, which is not covered by the protection of fundamental rights. The Federal Supreme Court emphasizes that the goal of the action was precisely to disrupt, which weakens constitutional protection.
   4. The sentence imposed (a suspended monetary penalty) is considered light and does not create a disproportionate "chilling effect" on the exercise of political freedoms.

Outcome

The Federal Supreme Court rejects the appeal. The appellant's conviction for coercion and obstruction of public services is upheld. The legal costs are charged to the appellant.

Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Claudia Malaguerra