Communicated on 30 January 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 7871/10 Zoltán KÖRTVÉLYESSY against Hungary lodged on 3 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zoltán Körtvélyessy , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant intended to organise a demonstration protesting against “the persecution of national radicalism”. It was planned to take place between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 15 August 2009. The venue was Venyige Street in Budapest X District, in front of Budapest Penitentiary. The applicant, in the notification addressed to Budapest Police Department under Act no. III of 1989 on the Right of Assembly, indicated that a maximum of 200 participants were to be expected.

On 14 August 2009 Budapest Police Department banned the demonstration, in pursuit of its prerogatives under section 8(1) of Act no. III of 1989. It was of the view that there was no alternative route for the traffic in the neighbourhood, and consequently the demonstration would impede traffic inordinately. It the applicant was reproached with the fact that the notification did not contain the agenda for the gathering.

Because of this prohibition, the demonstration did not take place.

On 17 August 2009 the applicant requested judicial review of the police decision. He explained inter alia that he had not specified the agenda because the meeting had been intended as a rather small one and that therefore the actual course of events, such as speeches or discussion, was hard to predict.

On 19 August 2009 the Budapest Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint. It observed that the question of previous notification of the agenda was immaterial, since the only valid reason in the case was the disproportionate difficulties which would be caused to traffic by the demonstration. The court relied on the opinion of a traffic expert, in whose opinion the demonstration would have significantly impeded the traffic heading to the shops located in Venyige Street (a cul-de-sac ), to the local waste disposal site and to the suppliers ’ entrance of Budapest Prison. Relying on that reasoning, the court endorsed the police decision.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 11, 14 and 17 of the Convention that the authorities ’ overly restrictive interpretation of the notion of “no alternative traffic route” resulted in a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of assembly.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of the a pplicant ’ s right to freedom of peaceful assembly , contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (cf. Patyi and Others v. Hungary , no. 5529/05, 7 October 2008 ) ?