A wave of arrests targeted a group described by authorities as a criminal organization, with reports indicating fifteen climate activists were detained across several regions. In addition to the fifteen, another thirty activists have reportedly been detained since the beginning of December. Police sources cited by news agencies described the operation as ongoing, with the National Police declining to confirm the arrests on the day in question. The situation suggests a broad enforcement sweep rather than a localized action.
Those following the case say the detentions fit into a larger protest effort, portraying the police action as a sweeping crackdown. There are indications that two of the arrests occurred in France, which hints at a cross border impact and implies that the measures resonate beyond any single nation
From the perspective of the protesting group, the measures appear to suppress peaceful climate activism rather than address concrete criminal activity. The group rejects the label criminal organization, arguing that such a designation relies on a purpose to commit crimes, a criterion they say does not apply here. No activist has been convicted of a crime, and civil disobedience is widely recognized as a legitimate form of protest by international guidelines.
Spokespersons for the movement called on authorities to explain the legal basis for treating peaceful climate advocacy as criminal, and they pressed for accountability from the interior ministry. The group stresses that advocates pushing for sustainable changes face targeted scrutiny while raising suspicions about corruption and undisclosed motives within public administrations and large corporate entities that have not been investigated.
Observers note that the handling of these cases raises broader questions about democratic rights and the boundaries of lawful protest. Critics warn that labeling peaceful actions as criminal could chill civic engagement and undermine public trust in government institutions. Supporters of the crackdown argue that maintaining public order requires strong measures in the face of what they perceive as disruptive activity. The debate touches on the balance between national security interests and the right to assemble, as outlined in international human rights norms.
Legal experts emphasize that the Criminal Code typically defines a criminal organization through evidence of an intent to commit crimes, a criterion many observers believe is not met by peaceful protest. In this context, the absence of convictions among the detained activists strengthens arguments that the actions may reflect a misalignment between enforcement strategies and lawful, peaceful activism. The ongoing situation underscores the importance of transparent justification for arrests and clear standards for distinguishing peaceful protest from unlawful conduct.
In the days following the detentions, representatives requested detailed explanations about the legal grounds for the actions and the specific acts attributed to the group. They argued that a robust, inclusive dialogue about environmental policy would be more constructive than punitive measures against peaceful demonstrators. The unfolding events have prompted discussions about the role of civil society in shaping sustainable policy and the safeguards needed to ensure that dissent remains a protected form of expression while public safety is upheld.