Communicated on 21 April 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 69924/12 Ferenc LÁSZLÓ against Hungary lodged on 24 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ferenc László , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Nagykőrös . He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Karsai , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

At the material time the applicant was an elected member of the Nagykőrös municipal assembly, belonging to the opposition.

On 2 April 2012 he published on his Internet blog a post about the outcome of a secret vote of the municipal assembly. He revealed that the representatives of the majority had not approved the annual report submitted by the police commissioner. He explained that during the secret vote he had got a glimpse of the voting screen of his fellow party members and had deduced from what he saw that the votes against the report were from the ruling party ’ s representatives. He went on to state that the reason for disapproval was that the police had not hesitated to fine members of the assembly for traffic violations. He asserted that the reason for voting against the report was “petty revenge”. The blog entry also suggested ways to improve public parking lots, an alleged shortcoming in the work of the police.

During the assembly session of 26 April 2012 the deputy mayor proposed to fine the applicant. He explained that the conduct of the applicant, divulging the outcome of a secret vote, infringed the dignity of the deliberations. On the same day, th e Assembly adopted decision no. 47/2012. (IV.26) establishing that the applicant ’ s conduct infringed the dignity of assembly sessions and fined him 50,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 160 euros) under section 60 of the Rules of Procedure. The decision contained no particular reasoning. Under section 60 (5) of the Rules of Procedure, no remedy lay against this decision, but the applicant ’ s comment was included in the minutes of the meeting.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court, alleging the unconstitutionality of Municipal Regulations no. 15/2011. (IV.1) on the Rules of Procedure. On 24 September 2012 his complaint was declared inadmissible, as lodged outside the statutory time-limit. According to the Constitutional Court ’ s reasoning the applicant should have submitted his complaint within 180 days following the entering into force of the Regulations, that is, on 2 April 2011 at the latest.

B. Relevant domestic law

Municipal Regulations no. 15/2011. (IV.1) on the Rules of Procedure provide as follows:

Section 60

“(1) A member of the assembly whose conduct infringes the dignity of the deliberations, or insults another members of the assembly during the assembly session commits discourteous conduct ( széksértés ).

2) A member of assembly who have committed discourteous conduct can be fined 30,000 to 50,000 Hungarian forints.

...

(5 ) ... No appeal is possible against the decision concerning discourteous conduct or the amount of the fine.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges that the decision to fine him for commenting on the outcome of voting at the municipal assembly violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, in that the measure had no foreseeable legal basis, did not serve a legitimate aim and was disproportionate. He claims that the impugned measure has a chilling effect on democratically elected representatives expressing their political opinion on issues of public interest, in particular the politics of the ruling party. He further maintains that under domestic law no remedy lay against the decisions adopted by the municipal assembly, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, in particular with regard to his role as an elected representative participating in debates of public interest and scrutinising decisions concerning local governance? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Were the provisions of Municipal Regulations no. 15/ 2011. (IV.1) sufficiently precise and foreseeable in their application, especially as regards the sanction imposed on the applicant?

2. Did the applicant have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of his freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention?