12.  The first applicant, Mr Arūnas Kudrevičius (“A.K.”), was born in 1970 and lives in Vaitkūnai village, Utena region; the second applicant, Mr Bronius Markauskas (“B.M.”), was born in 1960 and lives in Triušeliai village, Klaipėda region; the third applicant, Mr Artūras Pilota (“A.P.”), was born in 1973 and lives in Ožkasviliai village, Marijampolė region; the fourth applicant, Mr Kęstutis Miliauskas (“K.M.”), was born in 1959 and lives in Jungėnai village, Marijampolė region; and the fifth applicant, Mr Virginijus Mykolaitis (“V.M.”), was born in 1961 and lives in Varakiškė village, Vilkaviškis region. 13.  On 15 April 2003 a group of farmers held a demonstration in front of the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament) building to protest about the situation in the agricultural sector with regard to a fall in wholesale prices for various agricultural products and the lack of subsidies for their production, demanding that the State take action. On 22 April 2003 Parliament passed a resolution on reinforcing the competitiveness of agriculture, providing for an increase in subsidies for the agricultural sector. According to the applicants, this resolution was not implemented by the government. 14.  On 16 May 2003 the Chamber of Agriculture (Žemės ūkio rūmai), an organisation established to represent the interests of farmers, met to discuss possible solutions to the issues. If no positive changes in legal regulation were forthcoming, the measures foreseen included addressing complaints to the administrative courts. In the meantime, it was decided to organise protests, in three different locations next to major highways (prie magistralinių kelių), to draw attention to the problems in the agricultural sector. 15.  In May 2003 the Kalvarija municipality issued a permit to hold peaceful assemblies in Kalvarija town “near the marketplace” from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. between 13 and 16 May 2003, from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on 17 May 2003 and from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. on 19 and 20 May 2003. The organisers had been warned about possible liability under the Code of Administrative Law Offences as well as under the Criminal Code, including under Article 283 of the latter (see paragraph 62 below). According to the Government, similar permits, accompanied by the same warnings, were issued for 21 to 23, 24 and 26 to 30 May 2003. 16.  On 8 May 2003 the Pasvalys municipality issued a permit to hold a demonstration “at the car park at the sixty-third kilometre of the Via Baltica highway and next to that highway”. The farmers were also authorised to display agricultural machinery for ten days from 15 to 25 May 2003. On 12 May 2003 the organisers of the gathering were informed about possible liability under the Code of Administrative Law Offences as well as under the Criminal Code, including under Article 283 of the latter. 17.  On 19 May 2003 the Klaipėda municipality issued a permit to hold an assembly in an “area in Divupiai village next to, but not closer than twenty-five metres from, the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway” from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. between 19 and 25 May 2003. The permit specified that it granted the right to organise a peaceful assembly in compliance with the provisions set forth, inter alia, in the Constitution and in the Law on Assembly. It was also indicated therein that the organisers and the participants were to observe the laws and to adhere to any orders from the authorities and the police; failure to do so could engage their administrative or criminal liability. The second applicant, B.M., who was indicated as one of the organisers of the gathering, signed a receipt for the notification of the permit. 18.  The Klaipėda police received information about the demonstrators’ possible intention to overstep the limits established by the permits. B.M. was therefore contacted by telephone and a meeting with him was organised in order to avoid unlawful acts being carried out during the demonstrations. 19.  The demonstrations started on 19 May 2003. The farmers gathered in the designated areas. 20.  On 21 May 2003 the farmers blocked and continued to demonstrate on the roads next to Divupiai village, on the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway, at the sixty-third kilometre of the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, and at the ninety-fourth kilometre of the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway. 21.  The Government pointed out that the police had not received any prior official notification of the demonstrators’ intention to block the three major roads of the country. They described as follows the behaviour of the farmers and of the applicants during the demonstrations.
(a)  On 21 May 2003 at around 12 noon, a group of approximately 500 people walked onto the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway and remained standing there, thus stopping the traffic.
(b)  On 21 May 2003 at 12 noon, a group of approximately 250 people walked onto the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway and remained standing there, thus stopping the traffic. The blockade remained in place until 12 noon on 23 May 2003. The first applicant encouraged the demonstrators to move from the car park onto the highway.
(c)  On 21 May 2003 at 11.50 a.m. a group of 1,500 people walked onto the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway and remained standing there, thus stopping the traffic. In addition, on the same day between 3 and 4.30 p.m. the third, fourth and fifth applicants drove tractors onto the highway and left them there. The blockade remained in place until 4 p.m. on 22 May 2003. 22.  On 22 May 2003 the farmers continued negotiations with the government. The next day, following a successful outcome to those negotiations, the farmers stopped blocking the roads. 23.  The parties disagreed as to the extent of the disruption to traffic created by the farmers’ demonstrations. 24.  According to the applicants (see paragraph 121 below), knowing that blockades were likely to occur, the police had prepared alternative road itineraries in the vicinity of the places where the demonstrations were held, so that the roadblocks would not disrupt the flow of goods. Indeed, on the days in question the latter had been “even better than usual”. This could be proven by the “data from posts where the roadblocks took place”. 25.  In a letter of 24 August 2004 addressed to the applicants’ lawyer, the State Border Guard Service indicated that several queues of lorries (ranging from 2 to 10 kilometres long) had formed from 21 until 23 May 2003 in both directions in the proximity of the Kalvarija border crossing between Lithuania and Poland. According to the same letter, “there were no queues of passenger cars”. Moreover, no queues had formed at the Lazdijai State border post (another post on the Lithuanian-Polish border). 26.  The Government observed, firstly, that the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway was the main trunk road connecting the three biggest cities in the country, while the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway (otherwise known as Via Baltica) and the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway were transitional trunk roads used to enter and leave the country. According to the Government, all three roads were blocked at locations next to the customs post for approximately forty-eight hours. 27.  The Government alleged, in particular, that owing to the blocking of the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway, which prevented vehicles from passing through border control, queues of heavy goods vehicles and cars formed in Lithuania and Poland at the Kalvarija border crossing. The heavy goods vehicles were forced to drive along other routes in order to avoid traffic jams. As the functioning of the Kalvarija customs post was disrupted, the Kaunas territorial customs authority was obliged to re-allocate human resources as well as to prepare for a possible reorganisation of activities with the State Border Guard Service and the Polish customs. As a consequence, the Kaunas territorial customs authority incurred additional costs; however, the concrete material damage had not been calculated. 28.  According to a report of the Kalvarija police, the road was blocked on 22 May 2003. The lorries returning to Lithuania from Poland were directed by the police to a car park at the Kalvarija border crossing. At around 11.40 a.m. the lorry drivers approached the farmers. They demanded an end to the roadblocks, under threat of physical force. The police urged the parties to the conflict to calm down and to wait for the outcome of the negotiations between the farmers and the Prime Minister. According to the Government, the farmers and the lorry drivers had a few arguments, but more serious confrontations were avoided. At around 4.15 p.m. the farmers received a telephone call regarding the positive outcome of the negotiations and moved one tractor off the road. The traffic then resumed in both directions. 29.  The Government also noted that, owing to the blocking of the Vilnius-Riga highway on 22 May 2003 from 2 until 4 p.m., heavy goods vehicles could not cross the border and queues of traffic of 1,600 and 700 metres respectively appeared in both directions. Cars took diversions along a gravel road. 30.  On 1 September 2003 the Pasvalys police issued a certificate stating that between 19 and 23 May 2003 the farmers had held a demonstration in the car park at the sixty-third kilometre of the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway. On 21 May 2003 at around midday the farmers had gone onto the highway and had stopped the traffic. They had only allowed through passenger vehicles and vehicles carrying dangerous substances. Goods vehicles and cars were allowed to go through ten at a time on each side of the road once every hour. In order to improve the situation, the police had attempted to let the traffic bypass the blockade through neighbouring villages. However, owing to the poor condition of those neighbouring roads, not all goods vehicles were able to drive on them and they had to remain on the highway until the farmers had left. Some lorries became stuck in sand and special machinery was necessary to pull them out. The police indicated that the farmers had unblocked the highway at 4 p.m. on 23 May 2003. 31.  As can be seen from the documents submitted to the Court, in May and September 2003 four logistics companies informed the police and Linava, the Lithuanian National Road Carriers’ Association, that they had sustained pecuniary damage in the sum of 25,245 Lithuanian litai ((LTL) – approximately 7,300 euros (EUR)) as a result of the roadblocks during the farmers’ demonstrations. The companies stated that they would institute court proceedings in respect of those claims. 32.  The Government alleged that, notwithstanding the fact that only one claim for pecuniary damage was ultimately lodged (see paragraph 40 below), more than one carrier company incurred material loss owing to the disruption of traffic. As submitted by Linava, Vilniaus Dobilas incurred damage amounting to LTL 6,100 (approximately EUR 1,760); Rokauta incurred damage amounting to LTL 4,880 (approximately EUR 1,400); and Immensum incurred damage amounting to LTL 3,600 (approximately EUR 1,050). Moreover, in a letter of 26 May 2003, the company Ridma indicated that the loss incurred by them owing to the roadblocks amounted to LTL 10,655 (approximately EUR 3,000). 33.  Pre-trial investigations against the applicants and a number of other persons, on suspicion of having caused a riot, were initiated. In July 2003 B.M., V.M., A.P. and K.M. were ordered not to leave their places of residence. That measure was lifted in October 2003. 34.  On 1 October 2003 the police imposed a fine of LTL 40 (approximately EUR 12) on a farmer, A.D. According to the applicants, it was established in the police record relating to the fine that on 21 May 2003 A.D. had taken the farmers to block the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway in the Kalvarija municipality; he had walked in the middle of the road, pushing a cart in front of him, thus obstructing the traffic. By such actions A.D. had breached paragraph 81 of the Road Traffic Regulations (see paragraph 67 below) and thus committed an administrative-law violation, as provided for in Article 131 of the Code of Administrative Law Offences (see paragraph 66 below). 35.  The Government noted that the criminal proceedings against A.D. were discontinued on 1 August 2003 as he had not organised or provoked a gathering to seriously breach public order; his act (walking in the middle of the road pushing a cart in front of him) was not considered to fall under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 62 below). The Government further noted that the criminal proceedings had been discontinued on similar grounds in respect of three other persons. In respect of a fourth person the criminal prosecution was discontinued owing to his immunity as a member of parliament. 36.  On 4 December 2003 an indictment was laid before the courts. B.M. and A.K. were accused of incitement to rioting under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 37.  The prosecutor noted that B.M. had taken part in the farmers’ meeting of 16 May 2003, at which the farmers had decided to hold demonstrations near major highways on 19 May and, should the government not satisfy their requests by 11 a.m. on 21 May, to blockade those highways. On 19 May B.M. had told the farmers to blockade the roads on 21 May. As a result, at 12.09 p.m. on that date around 500 farmers had gone onto the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway. The farmers had refused to obey police requests not to stand on the road. Consequently, traffic had been blocked until 1 p.m. on 23 May. Traffic jams had occurred on neighbouring roads and road transport in the region had become impossible. 38.  With regard to A.K., the prosecutor claimed that he had also incited the farmers to blockade the highway. As a result, at midday on 21 May 2003 approximately 250 people had gone onto the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, refusing to obey police orders not to block the highway. The road had remained blocked until 10.58 a.m. on 23 May. The roads in the vicinity had become clogged. The normal functioning of the Saločiai-Grenctale border-control post had been disrupted. 39.  V.M., K.M. and A.P. were accused of a serious breach of public order during the riot, under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor maintained that on 21 May 2003, at around 11.50 a.m., approximately 1,500 people had gone onto the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway at the ninety-fourth kilometre. At about 3 or 4 p.m. the above-mentioned applicants had driven three tractors onto the highway and had left them on the carriageway. The three applicants had refused to follow police instructions not to breach public order and not to leave the tractors on the road. The tractors had remained on the road until 4.15 p.m. on 22 May 2003. As a result, the highway had been blocked from the eighty-fourth to the ninety-fourth kilometre. Due to the resulting increase in traffic on neighbouring roads, congestion had built up and road transport in the region had come to a halt. The normal functioning of the Kalvarija and Marijampolė State border-control posts had been disrupted. 40.  Within the criminal proceedings, a logistics company brought a civil claim against A.K., as the person who had incited the farmers to block the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, seeking damages of LTL 1,100 (approximately EUR 290) for the loss allegedly incurred by it owing to the blockading of that road. 41.  Several hearings, during which a number of witnesses testified, took place before the Kaunas City District Court. 42.  On 29 September 2004 the Kaunas City District Court found the applicants guilty of incitement to rioting or participating in them, under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 43.  In convicting B.M., the District Court relied on video-recordings of the events, documentary evidence and the testimony of one witness. The court concluded that B.M. had organised a gathering with the aim of seriously breaching public order, namely by rioting. B.M. had been one of the leaders of the farmers’ meeting on 16 May 2003, at which the farmers had decided to attempt to achieve their goals by organising protests next to major highways. The District Court noted that B.M. had coordinated the actions of the farmers and as a consequence, on 21 May 2003, approximately 500 people had gone on to the Vilnius-Klaipėda highway and had blocked it. As a result, traffic had been blocked until 23 May 2003. The ensuing serious breach of public order had been deliberate and had to be characterised as a riot. The District Court dismissed B.M.’s claim that he and other farmers had acted out of necessity because the roadblock had been their last opportunity to draw the government’s attention to their problems. The farmers had had an alternative, namely, they could have brought complaints before the administrative courts. The farmers had themselves mentioned that alternative during the meeting of 16 May 2003 (see paragraph 14 above). The District Court further noted that a person who created a dangerous situation by his or her actions could only rely on the defence of necessity when a dangerous situation arose through negligence (Article 31 § 2 of the Criminal Code – see paragraph 65 below). However, the actions of B.M. had been deliberate and it was therefore appropriate to find him guilty of organising the riot. 44.  The District Court found it established, mainly on the basis of video-recordings and documentary evidence, that A.K. had also organised a gathering with the aim of seriously breaching public order. He had taken part in the farmers’ meeting of 16 May 2003 and had known about the decision to hold protests next to the roads. When a crowd of farmers had blocked the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway on 21 May 2003, public order had been seriously breached. Traffic had been stopped on that part of the road, causing inconvenience to drivers and goods carriers. The District Court held that 
“during the blockade of 21 and 22 May, A.K. coordinated the actions of the crowd, that is to say he gave orders that some of the vehicles should be let through, incited [the farmers] to hold on and not to move away from the highway, was in contact with the participants in the protests in the Kalvarija municipality and the Klaipėda region, [and] was negotiating with the authorities by mobile phone in the name of the farmers”. 
The District Court emphasised that the farmers who had gathered (approximately 250 people) “obeyed the actions of A.K. and followed his orders”. For the District Court, the actions of A.K. were to be characterised as organising a riot under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 45.  On the basis of written evidence submitted by Linava, the District Court also found that by organising the blockade of the Panevėžys-Pasvalys-Riga highway, A.K. had caused pecuniary damage to three carrier companies. As one of the carriers had submitted a civil claim for the sum of LTL 1,100 (approximately EUR 290 – see paragraph 40 above), the District Court deemed it proper to grant that claim. 46.  In finding V.M., K.M. and A.P. guilty of causing a serious breach of public order during a riot, the District Court, on the basis of documentary evidence, audio-visual material and the testimony of two witnesses, established that on 21 May 2003 between 11.50 a.m. and 4.15 p.m. the three of them had driven tractors onto the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway at the ninety-fourth kilometre. They had refused to obey lawful orders by the police not to breach public order and not to park the tractors on the road (ant važiuojamosios kelio dalies) and had kept the tractors there until 4.15 p.m. on 22 May 2003. As a consequence, and because about 1,500 people had gathered on the road, the traffic had been blocked from the eighty-fourth to the ninety-fourth kilometre of the Kaunas-Marijampolė-Suvalkai highway, traffic jams had occurred and the normal functioning of the Kalvarija and Lazdijai border-control posts had been disrupted. 47.  The five applicants were each given a sixty-day custodial sentence (baudžiamasis areštas). The District Court also noted that all the applicants had positive characteristics and that there were no circumstances aggravating their guilt. Accordingly, there was reason to believe that the aim of the punishment could be achieved without actually depriving them of their liberty. Consequently, the District Court suspended the execution of their sentences for one year. The applicants were ordered not to leave their places of residence for more than seven days without the authorities’ prior agreement. This measure was to last for one year, while execution of the sentence was suspended. 48.  The District Court also acquitted, for lack of evidence, two other individuals charged with organising the riots. 49.  On 18 October 2004 the applicants lodged an appeal with the Kaunas Regional Court. They noted, inter alia, that another farmer, A.D., had been punished only under administrative law for an identical violation (see paragraphs 34-35 above). 50.  The applicants further argued that in European Union member States, roadblocks were accepted as a form of demonstration, and that the right to demonstrate was guaranteed by Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention. They referred, inter alia, to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2679/98 of 7 December 1998 (see paragraph 77 below) and to a report of 22 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities (COM(2001) 160) on the application of that Regulation, as well as to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities (ECJ) in Eugen Schmidberger, Internationale Transporte und Planzüge v. Austria (see paragraphs 73-76 below). 51.  On 14 January 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court found that the District Court had thoroughly and impartially assessed all the circumstances of the case. The Regional Court observed that the offence of rioting endangered public order, public safety and public health, human dignity and the inviolability of property. The objective aspect of the offence was the organising of a gathering of people for a common goal – namely, to breach public order – and the implementation of their decision which, in the instant case, had been to organise the roadblocks. To constitute an offence, the actions also had to be committed deliberately, that is to say, the persons charged had to understand the unlawfulness of their behaviour. In relation to B.M. and A.K., the Regional Court observed that during the demonstrations the two applicants had told others that it had been decided to block the roads. It had been established that B.M. and A.K. had understood that the roadblocks would be illegal and that they had been warned about their liability as organisers. Even so, they had continued to coordinate the farmers’ actions and had insisted that the farmers maintain the roadblocks. As a direct result of the actions of B.M. and A.K., on 21 May 2003 a crowd had gone onto the highways and had blocked them, thereby stopping the traffic and breaching the constitutional rights and liberties of others to move freely and without restriction, causing damage to goods carriers and thus seriously breaching public order. 52.  The Regional Court also shared the District Court’s conclusion as to the reasonableness of convicting V.M., K.M. and A.P. It noted that by driving tractors onto the highway, thus causing traffic congestion and disturbing the work of the State border-control service, and by refusing to obey lawful requests by the police not to park their tractors on the road, the three applicants had seriously breached public order. The fact that after the highway had been blocked the police and the drivers had negotiated with the farmers, with the result that some of the drivers had been let through, did not diminish the danger caused by the offence or its unlawfulness. The Regional Court also emphasised that the blockading of a major highway had had dangerous consequences and could not be considered to have been a mere administrative-law offence such as a traffic violation. As to the applicants’ argument that their offences were identical to that for which another farmer, A.D., had been given a mere administrative sanction for a traffic violation (see paragraph 49 above), the Regional Court indicated that it was not an administrative tribunal and thus could not comment on the administrative offence. 53.  While noting that the applicants had the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, the Regional Court nevertheless observed that such right was not without restrictions, should the interests of public order and prevention of crime be at stake. Analogous limitations to freedom of expression were listed in Article 25 of the Lithuanian Constitution (see paragraph 61 below). On this issue, the Regional Court emphasised that the behaviour of B.M. and A.K., in guiding the actions of the other individuals involved in the protest, could not be regarded as a non-punishable expression of their opinion, because they had breached public order, thus engaging criminal liability. 54.  The Regional Court further noted that the criminal offence had not lost its element of danger to the public merely because the government had refused to raise wholesale prices or had allegedly failed to take the necessary action. 55.  On 2 March 2005 the applicants appealed on points of law. 56.  On 4 October 2005 the Supreme Court, composed of an enlarged chamber of seven judges (see paragraph 70 below), dismissed the appeal. In providing an explanation as to the substance of the offence of rioting, as defined in Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 62 below), the Supreme Court referred to its classification as an offence against public order, which was the objective aspect of the crime (nusikaltimo objektas). In describing the scope of the offence, the aforementioned provision stipulated the following features: the organisation of a gathering with the aim of causing public violence, damaging property or otherwise breaching public order, or the commission of those actions during a gathering. For the Supreme Court, a riot was to be characterised as a situation where a gathering of people deliberately and seriously breached public order, caused public violence, or damaged property. The subjective aspect of the crime was that of direct intent (kaltė pasireiškia tiesiogine tyčia). The guilty person had to (i) be aware that he or she was performing an action that was listed as an offence in Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code; and (ii) wish to act accordingly. 57.  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Supreme Court found that the courts below had been correct in characterising the applicants’ actions as falling under Article 283 § 1 of the Criminal Code. In particular, the trial court had properly established all the prerequisites for the application of Article 283 § 1, namely that there had been a crowd and that public order had been breached by blocking the highways, stopping traffic and disturbing the work of the State border-control service. The applicants had been sentenced for their offences under a law in force at the time they were committed and their sentences had been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Code. It followed that the applicants’ convictions had been in accordance with the law and not in breach of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention. 58.  The Supreme Court also stated that the applicants had not been sentenced for expressing their opinion or imparting ideas, actions which were protected by the guarantees of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, but for actions by which they had seriously breached public order. 59.  Lastly, the Supreme Court shared the Regional Court’s view that the applicants could not be regarded as having acted out of necessity (see paragraph 54 above). The fall in milk purchase prices and other problems with subsidies for agriculture had not constituted a clear or present danger to property, because the property in question had not yet materialised. The State had not deprived the applicants of their property, and their dissatisfaction with the government’s agricultural policy had not justified the acts for which the applicants had been convicted. 60.  By court rulings of 17, 18, 20, 21 October and 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court discharged the applicants from their suspended sentences.