Published on 4 October 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 42526/17 László PÓKA against Hungary lodged on 2 June 2017 communicated on 13 September 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application raises an issue under Article 11 of the Convention in relation to a spontaneous demonstration. In April 2015, the applicant, together with another person, applied to the Budapest Police Department for authorisation to a hold a demonstration called “Hold your looters accountable 2015”, scheduled in Budapest, for 7 May 2015. As part of the demonstration, five demonstrators were supposed to deliver a petition to the Speaker of Parliament, which was previously agreed with the Speaker’s Press Division. The Police Department authorised the demonstration and secured the event.

The demonstration was held as planned; however, despite the prior consultation, the Speaker’s Office refused to accept the petition. This caused a furore among the demonstrators, who decided to voice their dissatisfaction through a spontaneous demonstration at a different location. The applicant and the other organiser notified the police constable and the on-site commander of this change. The two police officers informed them about the legal consequences of diverging from the authorised location of the demonstration. Approximately 110 demonstrators marched to another location and sat down on the pedestrian crossing and stayed there four roughly one hour, before they joined the authorised demonstration again.

On 28 August 2015, the police department imposed a fine of approximately 210 euros on the applicant for abusing the right to assembly solely because the demonstrators had diverged from the authorised location and form of the demonstration.

The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court upheld the administrative decision, finding that there had been no reason for diverging from the authorised plan, and on 28 November 2016, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The decision was served on the applicant on 5 December 2016.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (see Bukta and Others v. Hungary , no. 25691/04, § 31-39, ECHR 2007 ‑ III)?

2. In particular, were the reasons relied upon by the domestic authorities to penalise the demonstration relevant and sufficient for the purposes of Article 11 of the Convention (see Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania [GC], no. 37553/05, § 142-44, ECHR 2015)?