Communicated on 2 June 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 20424/10 László GONDA and others against Hungary lodged on 22 March 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr L. Grespik, who passed away on 19 December 2016.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

Following a controversial speech by the Prime Minister being rendered public on 17 September 2006, a spontaneous demonstration started in Budapest without prior notice. The demonstrators, including the applicants, assembled on Kossuth Square in front of the Parliament building. The gathering continued on the following days.

One of the applicants, Mr Takács, notified the police that between 27 September and 25 October 2006 demonstrations would be held in the car park in front of the Parliament building.

In preparation for the national remembrance day of 23 October, the Office of the Prime Minister agreed with the demonstration organisers that certain checks would be carried out by the police at the site of the demonstrations to ensure the safety of the event. The demonstrators, approximately 200 people, were called upon to leave the site during the search and reminded that certain objects were banned from the site during the remembrance proceedings.

On 22 October 2006 the police searched the site and found a number of objects that could serve as makeshift weapons, including construction material, petrol cans, knives and iron pipes. The police decided to disband the assembly, considering that “it had lost its peaceful nature” since the demonstrators were armed. At the same time, the Budapest Police Department closed access to Kossuth Square for the period between 23 October and 24 November 2006.

On 23 October 2006 a crowd of approximately 500 to 1,000 people gathered on Alkotmány Street, which had been blocked with metal fencing, and demanded entry to Kossuth Square. Since they were denied entry to the square, they knocked down the fencing. Police reinforcements held the crowd back and called on them to disperse on the grounds that the demonstration was taking place without prior notice and “had lost its peaceful nature”. Following further resistance by the demonstrators, the police finally disbanded the assembly using coercive measures, such as rubber bullets, truncheons and riot shields.

The applicants instituted civil proceedings before the Budapest Regional Court, requesting the court to establish that the dispersal of the demonstrations at Kossuth Square and Alkotmány Street had been unlawful.

By its judgment of 14 September 2009 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants ’ action. As regards the dispersal of the demonstration on Kossuth Square, it explained that the objects found by the police had not been essential for the applicants to express their opinion and that the police had rightly concluded, once the objects had been discovered, that the demonstration had lost its peaceful nature. It noted that the applicants had failed to disperse the non-peaceful assembly themselves or to check the objects the demonstrators had been carrying.

As regards the demonstration on Alkotmány Street, the court found that the police had erred in relying on the lack of prior notice when dispersing the demonstration. However, the dispersal had been lawful, given the violent behaviour of the demonstrators.

The applicants lodged a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

By its judgment of 21 September 2010, the Supreme Court partly overturned the first-instance judgment and upheld the applicants ’ claim as regards the demonstrations at Kossuth Square. The Supreme Court noted that the Act on Freedom of Assembly provided only for peaceful demonstrations; nonetheless, the fact that some of the demonstrators had been armed or that there had been sporadic outbursts of violence did not allow the conclusion that the demonstration, in its entirety, had lost its peaceful nature. Thus, as regards the assembly at Kossuth Square, the court established that the fact that a small group of demonstrators had carried objects that could serve as improvised weapons, without the support of the majority of the participants or the organisers, had not provided sufficient reason to disperse the demonstration. The court also observed that the demonstration on Kossuth Square had been continuously ongoing as of 17 September 2006, during which time the demonstrators had remained peaceful.

On the contrary, as regards the demonstrations in Alkotmány Street, the court established that a crowd of about 500 to 1,000 people had knocked down the fencing blocking the street, and had attacked and thrown objects at the police. The court found that that conduct had not consisted of isolated acts of violence but that the crowd had acted in unity and the demonstration had “lost its peaceful nature”, rendering its dispersal by the police justified.

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 11 of the Convention, the applicants complain that their right to freedom of assembly was violated in that the police unjustifiably dispersed their demonstration on the basis of its alleged violent nature.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES:

1. Has there been an interference with the applicants ’ freedom of peaceful assembly within the meaning of Article 11 § 1 of the Convention?

2. If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 11 § 2?

Appendix

LIST OF APPLICANTS