Protesters occupying Holyrood grounds "until Scotland declares itself an independent country" have won a reprieve amid concerns eviction could breach their human rights to protest and assemble.

The Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body is seeking the removal of "Independence Camp" protesters who have occupied the grounds since November 2015.

Read more: Pro-indy camper challenges SNP to dissolve Westminster and claims 'we're kings and queens of this land'​

The camp comprises about six tents, a caravan, various cars, a storage container, wooden pallets, a power generator and an open fire or brazier.

Protesters "have publicly stated that they intend to maintain the camp until Scotland declares itself an independent country" and they intend to expand the camp to at least 100 people.

The corporate body says the camp presents "security and logistical concerns" for the opening ceremony of the new Scottish Parliament in July and generally restricts the use of the grounds by members of the public.

Read more: Holyrood indycampers to make case against eviction on 'independence day'

Arthur McManus Gemmell, who "designs himself as a member of the government of Scotland", and "the sovereign indigenous peoples of Scotland" are defending their right to remain in the Court of Session.

In a new ruling, Lord Turnbull acknowledged the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights entitles everyone to the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly "subject to some constraints ... provided they are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society".

He said: "The question for me would be whether the interference with the respondents' rights entailed in granting an order would be lawful, necessary and proportionate."

Read more: Holyrood campers may be permanent thanks to law passed by Scottish Parliament

Lord Turnbull said it "is not immediately obvious that the presence of the camp would inhibit the use of the grounds by others for picnicking, dog-walking or the like (or) that there are any real security or logistical concerns".

He said: "I am dealing with an important matter involving public interest in which those against whom the order is sought are not legally represented.

"The question of the proportionality of granting the order sought has been raised, in oral submissions at least, and in my judgement this is sufficient in the circumstances to bar me from granting the order sought until satisfied on this matter.

"I will therefore refuse to grant (the petition) and I will make an order requiring the case to call at a procedural hearing in order to identify the scope of further procedure.

"What I anticipate is that a hearing will then be fixed at which the petitioner and the respondents can lead evidence on the issues which they consider relevant to an assessment of the proportionality of the making of the order sought by the petitioner."

A Scottish Parliament spokesman said: "We welcome Lord Turnbull's opinion which recognises that the protesters' camp constitutes trespass and an encroachment on Parliament land, and that the Parliament may seek an order for the removal of a trespasser who refuses to leave.

"Today's opinion provides a positive step forward in the resolution of the issue and we are happy to comply with Lord Turnbull's request for information on the sole remaining issue of proportionality."