Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)54[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Bukta and others against Hungary
(Application No. 25691/04, judgment of 17/07/2007, final on 17/10/2007)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns unjustified interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly (violation of Article 11) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)54
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Bukta and others against Hungary
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the disproportionate restriction on the applicants’ right to freedom of peaceful assembly (violation of Article 11). A demonstration organised by the applicants was dispersed by the police on the ground that the organisers had not observed the requirement to notify the police three days before their intended demonstration as provided by law. The domestic courts found the demonstration unlawful on the same ground.
In the circumstances of this case the Court found this interference disproportionate, as it had been materially impossible to respect the three-day limit, and no other illegal act had been committed by the participants. In particular, the absence of the information available to the public sufficiently in advance about the Hungarian Prime Minister’s intention to attend a reception offered by the Romanian Prime Minister to commemorate Romania’s national day, against which the applicants demonstrated, left them with the option of either dispensing with the use of their right to peaceful assembly altogether, or of exercising it in defiance of administrative requirements. Furthermore, the domestic courts based their decision, declaring the police measures lawful, solely on the lack of prior notice and did not examine other aspects of the case, in particular, the peaceful nature of the event.
In the Court’s view, in special circumstances when an immediate response might be justified, in the form of a demonstration, to a political event, to disband the ensuing, peaceful assembly solely because of the absence of the requisite prior notice, without any illegal conduct by the participants, amounts to a disproportionate restriction on freedom of peaceful assembly. In this connection, the Court recalled that where demonstrators do not engage in acts of violence, it is important for the public authorities to show a certain degree of tolerance towards the peaceful gatherings if the freedom of assembly guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention is not to be deprived of all substance.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
-
2 000 EUR
2 000 EUR
Paid on 15/01/2008
b) Individual measures
The Court held that finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage the applicants might have sustained. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary.
II.General measures
The Hungarian authorities indicated that according to a decision of the Constitutional Court (75/2008 (V. 29.) AB), the requirement of prior notice before holding demonstrations was a prerequisite prescribed by law. The Constitutional Court nevertheless found it unconstitutional to prohibit a peaceful assembly solely because no prior notice had been given in the particular circumstances of a case because it could be appropriate to organise a demonstration immediately in response to a political event. It thus repealed the provision of paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Act. III of 1989 on the right to Assembly which provided for such prohibition. According to the Hungarian authorities, this means that following the decision of the Constitutional Court mentioned above prior notice before holding demonstrations is no longer required.
The Hungarian authorities also indicated that the Court’s judgments, including the judgment in the present case, are binding upon the domestic courts. If any similar case appears before the domestic courts, they will have to observe the Court’s judgment in the present case as the Constitutional Court has already done in its decision.
The Court’s judgment was published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement () and in professional journals. It was sent out to the Office of the National Judiciary Council, various government departments in charge of police administration, the National Police Headquarters and the Supreme Court.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction, that the general measures adopted will prevent similar violations and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy