Communicated on 9 February 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 27585/13 LÉGIKÖZLEKEDÉSI EGYESÜLT SZAKSZERVEZET and Attila CSORBA against Hungary lodged on 16 April 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The first applicant is a trade union, Légiközlekedési Egyesült Szakszervezet (“the Trade Union”), with its seat in Budapest. The second applicant, Mr Attila Csorba , a Hungarian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Vecsés , is its president. They are represented before the Court by Mr D. Karsai , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 12 October 2012 the second applicant applied to the Budapest police department for authorisation to hold a demonstration on the road leading to Budapest Liszt Ference International airport. He stated that the demonstration would be held on the hard shoulder of the road, which was not used ordinarily for traffic. The declared objectives of the demonstration were, inter alia , to draw the public ’ s attention to the precarious financial situation in which the employees of the airport would find themselves if salary cuts envisaged by the company managing the airport were carried out. The event was scheduled to be held between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. on 17 October 2012. The second applicant also specified that it was expected that between about fifty to 100 persons would participate in the event and that it was intended that speeches would be given and that an open letter would be read out.

On 14 October 2012 the Budapest police department registered the application and informed the second applicant that in order to clarify details regarding the programme of the demonstration and the number of police officers that would be required to secure the event, it was necessary to schedule a meeting with the organisers .

The second applicant and the Vice-President of the Trade Union met with the Monor police department on the same day. The representative of the police suggested that the demonstration be held at another location, since the planned venue would endanger traffic. The second applicant assured the police that the demonstrators would respect traffic rules, would only occupy the part of the road not used for traffic and would distribute flyers to car passengers, and that the organisers would call off or halt the demonstration if it was not in compliance with the relevant legal provisions.

On 14 October 2012 the Monor police department forbade the demonstration. It was of the view that the planned demonstration would endanger traffic and would render the airport inaccessible, infringing passengers ’ right to leave the country. In any event, the demonstration would breach the traffic code, since those parts of the road not used for traffic were not supposed to be accessed by pedestrians or used for parking.

On 17 October 2012 the applicants requested judicial review of the decision, relying on their right to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. They argued that a demonstration could only be forbidden on the grounds of a need to ensure traffic safety if there were no alternative means of access to the airport. In their view the demonstration would not constitute any greater hindrance to traffic than would roadworks.

By a decision of 19 October 2012 the Budapest Surroundings High Court dismissed their complaint, endorsing in essence the police department ’ s reasoning.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 11 of the Convention about the refusal of their application to organise a demonstration.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the applicants ’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention?