SECOND SECTION

Application no. 42461/13 Gergely KARÁCSONY and O thers against Hungary lodged on 14 June 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant s , Mr Gergely Karácsony (born in 1975) , Mr Péter Szilágyi (born in 1981), Mr Dávid Dorosz (born in 1985) and Mrs Rebeka Katalin Szabó (born in 1977) are H ungarian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr D. Karsai , a lawyer practising in Budapest .

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

The applicant s are Member s of Parliament and members of the opposition party “Politics Can Be Different” ( Lehet Más a Politika ).

At a plenary session o n 30 April 2013, during a voting process, the first and second applicants showed a billboard in the session hall displaying the text “You steal, you cheat, you lie”.

On 6 May 2013 the Speaker initiated disciplinary proceedings against the m , submitting a proposal to the plenary to fine Mr Karácsony 50,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 170 euros (EUR)) and Mr Szilágyi HUF 185,520 (approximately EUR 600) for seriously disrupting the proceedings of Parliament . In his proposal the Speaker argued that Mr Szilágyi should be subjected to a more severe measure, since he was an elected official of Parliament, not just a simple MP. The decision in this regard was adopted by the plenary on 13 May 2013. As appears from the case file, the applicants have not paid the fine yet.

On 21 May 2013 during a plenary voting, the third and fourth applicants presented a billboard with the text “Here operates the National Tobacco Mafia”.

On 27 May 2013 the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine them HUF 70,000 (EUR 240) each, for seriously disrupting the plenary proceedings. The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary, since similar, seriously disrupti ve conduct had occurred before. The plenary adopted the proposal on 27 May 2013. As appears from the case file, the applicants have not paid the fine s yet.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant s allege that the decision s to fine them for displaying billboards during the plenary sessions violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention, since they did not serve a legitimate aim and were disproportionate. They claim that the impugned measures have a chilling effect on Members of Parliament expressing their political opinion on issues of public interest. They further maintain that under domestic law no remedy lay against the decisions proposed by the Speaker and adopted by the plenary, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10. Finally, they submit that the measures targeted them as members of the opposition party, constituting discrimination on the ground of political affiliation, in breach of Article 14 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 having regard to their role as elected Member s of Parliament in participat ing in debates of public interest and scrutin ising decisions of the Government? If so, did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the applicants enjoy adequate procedural safeguards to know and challenge the reasons for the limitation on their right to freedom of expression (see Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy , no. 39128/05 , § 46 , 20 October 2009 ) ? Were the scope and the reasoning of the impugned measures sufficiently clear and well-defined, especially in terms of foreseeability of the sanction imposed on the applicants?

2. D id the applicant s have an effective remedy for the alleged violation of their freedom of expression , in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 , in view of the fact that the domestic law does not foresee any redress against the measure s in question?

3. H ave the applicant s suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression on the ground of their political belief s , contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10, given that only opposition members were subjected to disciplinary measures and restrictions due to the content of their statements?

4. The Government are requested to provide information on comparable interferences with the freedom of expression of M ember s of Parliament in th e M ember States of the Council of Europe.