PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE K Ū RIS

1. I respectfully disagree with the majority that three thousand euros should be paid to each of the applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Consequently, I voted against point 5 of the operative part of the judgment.

2. I have no hesitation in concurring with the majority that there have been violations of Article 10 of the Convention and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10, but at the same time I have no hesitation in finding that the normal work of the Hungarian Parliament was disrupted by the applicants ’ conduct which gave rise to those violations. A proper balance must be struck between these two aspects of the factual situation at hand. However, this balance is not present, because awarding substantial financial “satisfaction” to the applicants for the non-pecuniary damage which they allegedly sustained encourages, even if indirectly, political conduct of such a kind that should normally be avoided in a parliamentary democracy.

3. This case is a political one in the sense that it arose out of a political confrontation, as well as in the sense that the Court ’ s finding in it will inevitably have political consequences. Without any prejudice either to the political position of the applicants in the factual situation in which this confrontation occurred, or to that of their opponents, one can reasonably expect that that outcome will be favourable to the applicants rather than to their adversaries against whom they protested. For members of Parliament (as well as for most other politicians), winning such a case before the Court is, in itself, a satisfaction far greater than the money awarded in the present case for whatever non-pecuniary damage the applicants might have sustained. Thus, having regard to the particular political nature of this case, the non-pecuniary damage allegedly sustained by the applicants is already more than sufficiently compensated for by the findings of violations of Article 10 of the Convention and Article 13 in conjunction with Article 10.

[1] On 13 February 2014 Parliament adopted an amendment to this procedure, introducing the possibility for a fined MP to seek remedy before a committee (Act no. XIV of 2014, enacting a new section 51/A into Act no. XXXVI of 2012 ).

[2] The President of the European Council, Mr Van Rompuy, addressed the Parliament during the plenary sitting of 24 February 2010. Following that speech, a number of Members spoke, including the applicant, Mr Farage. By letter , the President of the Parliament, Mr Buzek, imposed a penalty on the applicant consisting in the forfeiture of entitlement to the daily subsistence allowance for a period of ten days .