Communicated on 4 March 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 59588/12 András BÉRES and O thers against Hungary and 2 other applications (see list appended)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 23 December 2011 the applicants participated in a demonstration organised by the political party “Politics Can Be Different ’ ” ( Lehet Más a Politika ). The demonstrators blocked the entrance of the car park of the Parliament by chaining themselves to each other and to the concrete columns situated next to the entrance.

Following the incident the Budapest Chief Police Department opened criminal investigations against twenty nine persons, including the applicants, on charges of violation of personal liberty under section 175(1) of the [old] Criminal Code.

On 9 March 2012 Parliament adopted Act no. XII of 2012 on the Exercise of Amnesty, which stated as follows:

“On the occasion of the entry into force of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, Parliament exercises its power under section 1(2) point j) of the Fundamental Law to grant amnesty under the following terms:

1. No criminal procedure can be instituted or continued on account of the criminal act of violation of personal liberty within the meaning of section 175 of Act no. IV of 1978 (Criminal Code), which was committed on 23 December 2011 by several persons who blocked the restricted area around Parliament by chaining themselves to each other and to the gates.

2. Any person convicted of the criminal act specified in section 1 prior to the entery into force of the present Act shall be exempted from punishment and deleted from the criminal register.

3. The amnesty shall extend to any minor offence committed in connection with the blocking of the entrance of the restricted area around Parliament by persons chaining themselves to each other and to the gates.

4. The amnesty shall extend to any confiscated object used for committing the criminal acts defined in the present Act (section 77(1) point a) of the Criminal Code).

5. The present Act enters into force on the day following its promulgation.”

The Act on the Exercise of Amnesty entered into force on 10 March 2012.

On 29 March 2012 the Budapest Chief Police Department discontinued the criminal investigation against the twenty nine suspects pursuant to sections 190(1) point e) and (2) on the ground that they had been granted amnesty.

On 6 September 2012 the applicants Ms Bende, Ms Kalocsai , Ms Ámon and Ms Székelyné Rákosi and Messrs Moldován and Gajárszki lodged constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court requesting that court to declare sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Act on the Exercise of Amnesty unconstitutional as infringing their right to reputation and the principle of presumption of innocence.

The Constitutional Court declared the complaints inadmissible. According to the reasoning of the decision, the complaints did not raise any constitutional law issues of “fundamental importance” , since they were based on the petitioners ’ erroneous interpretation of the law. In any event, the complaints were time-barred since they were lodged outside the 180 days ’ time-limit following the entering into force of the legislation.

COMPLAINT

The applicants maintain that the Act on the Exercise of Amnesty was a legislative act emanating from a State authority which purported to confirm that they had committed a crime, whereas criminal proceedings have never established their criminal responsibility. This constitutes in their view a breach of their rights to presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 and to reputation under Article 8 of the Convention.

QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the text of the Act on the Exercise of Amnesty compatible with Articles 6 § 2 and 8 of the Convention?

2. Is Article 6 § 2 of the Convention applicable in the present case? If yes, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by this provision, respected?

3: Was the language of the impugned legislation of such a seriously offensive nature that it had an inevitable direct effect on the applicants ’ private life (see Karakó v. Hungary , no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009)?

Appendix

No

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

59588/12

10/09/2012

András BÉRES

01/06/1969

Budapest

Ambrus GERŐ

24/03/1986

Göd

Balázs POLÁKOVICS

04/12/1983

Budapest

Ágnes SEREGÉLY

04/01/1982

Budapest

Levente STORK

23/05/1988

Budapest

Dániel András KARSAI

59632/12

10/09/2012

Anna BENDE

01/09/1981

Dunakeszi

Kinga Regina KALOCSAI

01/12/1986

Budapest

László MOLDOVÁN

09/05/1959

Budapest

Tamás FAZEKAS

59865/12

10/09/2012

Katalin ÁMON

22/01/1987

Budapest

Áron GAJÁRSZKI

12/01/1976

Budapest

Judit SZÉKELYNÉ RÁKOSI

05/07/1956

Budapest

András Kristóf KÁDÁR