Communicated on 19 November 2019

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 42444/17 László KERÉKGYÁRTÓ against Hungary lodged on 2 June 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns a spontaneous demonstration.

On 21 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.

On 7 May 2015, the demonstration was held as planned; however despite the prior consultation, the Speaker ’ s Office refused to accept the petition. This caused a furor among the demonstrators, who decided to voice their dissatisfaction through a spontaneous demonstration on a different location. The applicant and the other organiser notified the police constable and the on-site commander of the changes. The two policemen informed them about the legal consequences of diverging from the authorized location of the demonstration.

At 16:30 on 7 May 2015, approximately hundred and eleven demonstrators marched to another location and sat down on the pedestrian crossing and stayed there until 17:30, when they joined the authorised demonstration.

On 28 August 2015, the police department imposed a fine of approximately 155 euros (EUR) on the applicant for abusing of the right to assembly solely because the demonstrators had diverged from the authorised location and form of the demonstration.

On 7 January 2016, in the course of judicial review proceedings, the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court upheld the administrative decision, but reduced the amount of the fine to EUR 30. The court found that there had been no reason for diverging from the authorised plan.

On 28 November 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s constitutional complaint.

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)?