TUKACS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 75465/17
István TUKACS and Others
against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 September 2024 as a Committee composed of:

 Gilberto Felici, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 75465/17) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 18 October 2017 by 10 Hungarian nationals, relevant details listed in the appended table, (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr B. Czudar, a lawyer practising in Budapest;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the use, without permission, of banners in Parliament by the applicants during a speech by one of their colleagues, and ensuing sanctions imposed on them.

2.  At the material time, the applicants were members of the Hungarian Parliament (hereinafter “MPs”), of the opposition party Hungarian Socialist Party.

3.  On 3 April 2017 Parliament decided to debate Bill no. T/14686 amending Act no. CCIV of 2011 on national higher education in the course of exceptional legislative procedure. The Bill was adopted the next day.

4.  On 10 April 2017 A.K., an MP of the same political group as the applicants, delivered a pre-agenda speech, during which the applicants held up boards referring to Bill no. T/14686. The banner held by Ms Heringes, Ms Bangóné, Mr Gőgös, Mr Horváth, Mr Korózs read: “Don’t sign it, János!”, calling on the President of the Republic not to sign the Bill. The remainder of the applicants, Messrs Szakács, Teleki, Szabó, Józsa and Tukacs, held boards displaying the word “Veto”.

5.  On 13 April the Speaker of Parliament presented a proposal at the meeting of the House Committee to fine each of the applicants 50,000 Hungarian forints ((HUF); approximately 128 euros (EUR)). During the meeting he amended his proposal to increase the fine to HUF 100,000 (approximately EUR 256) in respect of Ms Heringes, Ms Bangóné, Mr Gőgös, Mr Horváth and Mr Korózs on the ground that their conduct concerned the President of the Republic. On 20 April 2017 the Speaker decided that the applicants’ monthly salary, due that month, should be decreased by HUF 100,000 and HUF 50,000 respectively. According to the reasoning of the decisions, they had not sought prior permission to display the boards in Parliament, in breach of sections 38/A (2)-(3) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 (hereinafter “the Parliament Act”), and that the boards had not related to A.K.’s pre-agenda speech, in breach of section 38/A (4) of the same Act.

6.  The applicants challenged the Speaker’s decisions before the Committee on Immunities, Conflict of Interest, Discipline and Verification of Credentials (“the Immunity Committee”), contesting in writing the constitutionality of the sanctions imposed on them.

7.  On 5 May 2017 the Immunity Committee, composed of three members from the ruling party and three members from the opposition, discussed the applicants’ request. With three votes in favour and three against, the Immunity Committee did not reach the majority required to uphold the applicants’ request.

8.  Subsequently the applicants requested Parliament to set aside the Speaker’s decisions. However, on 30 May 2017 Parliament upheld the Speaker’s decisions.

9.  The applicants complained that the decisions sanctioning them for having displayed posters during the parliamentary session had infringed their right to freedom of expression as provided for in Article 10 of the Convention. They further complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had had no effective remedy against these decisions.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

10.  By a letter of 3 October 2023, the applicants’ lawyer informed the Registry that Mr Horváth had died. No heirs or close relatives expressed the wish to pursue the application on behalf of Mr Horváth.

11.  The Court takes note of Mr Horváth’s death and the absence of the wish of any heirs or close relatives to pursue the application on his behalf.

12.  It has been the Court’s practice to strike applications out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, 30 March 2009).

13.  Therefore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, as the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the case (see, a contrario, Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 24‑28, ECHR 2003‑IX), it considers it appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in respect of Mr Horváth.

14.  The Court, being the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case, considers that both above-mentioned complaints (see paragraph 9) fall to be examined under Article 10 of the Convention (see, Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018).

15.  The parties agreed that the applicants’ sanctioning constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression and the Court sees no reason to hold otherwise.

16.  The applicants argued that the use of visual demonstrations had been necessary to express a political opinion concerning the reregulation of status of the Central European University. Their conduct, as a symbolic expression of their opinion, had been protected by Article 10 of the Convention. The Government maintained that the applicants had had other means to convey their intended message. By displaying banners they had not aimed at supporting the opinion of the MP taking the floor but to abuse their right to freedom of expression.

17.  The Court notes that the relevant domestic law has been set out in Ikotity and Others v. Hungary (no. 50012/17, §§ 14-17, 5 October 2023) while the Constitutional Court’s relevant practice and international and comparative law material have been set out in Karácsony and Others v. Hungary ([GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 32-61, 17 May 2016). Furthermore, the general principles applicable to the assessment of the interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression were set out in Karácsony and Others (cited above, §§ 132-47).

18.  In the context of complaints similar to the one in the present application, the Court has considered it appropriate to address two main questions, namely, (i) whether the applicable procedure was accompanied by sufficient procedural safeguards, and, (ii) whether [the refusal of permission and] the imposition of a sanction on the applicants for displaying the posters were in themselves disproportionate and thus unjustified (see Ikotity and Others, cited above, § 33). These questions are not unrelated because the nature and severity of the interference, on the one hand, and the nature and importance of freedom of expression in the circumstances of the case, on the other, might have an impact on the assessment of both the reasons for the interference and the procedural safeguards required under Article 10.

19.  As regards the proceedings leading to the imposition of the disciplinary sanctions, the Court notes that the Parliament Act provided for a remedy against the decision of the Speaker before the Immunity Committee, which the applicants used. The applicants had a right to be heard before that committee and they availed themselves of that right. The Immunity Committee issued a reasoned decision in each case.

20.  The Court takes note of the applicants’ argument that in practice those remedies could not be successful because the MPs of the ruling party alliance would have the same number of votes as the opposition MPs in the Immunity Committee. While it is true that the ruling party alliance had three out of six members in the Immunity Committee, nothing in the circumstances of the present case brought to the attention of the Court indicates that the decisions of the Immunity Committee were based on bias towards members of the opposition (see Karácsony and Others, cited above, § 147).

21.  Moreover, the Court recalls that in the case of Karácsony and Others it observed that by way of the above-mentioned procedure (which had not yet been in force at the time of the events concerned in that particular case), the minimum procedural safeguards required in respect of the disciplinary sanctions appeared to have been put in place (ibid., § 147). It further concluded in the case of Ikotity and Others that the procedural safeguards available to the applicants could be considered sufficient (see Ikotity and Others, cited above, § 38).

22.  Having examined the applicant’s arguments, the Court sees no reason to depart from this conclusion.

23.  As regards the justification of the sanctions imposed on the applicants, the Court notes that use of visual aids was regulated in section 38/A of the Parliament Act, which provided that no presentation tools should be used during parliamentary sessions except for when permission to that effect had been granted by the House Committee, in which case the presentation should be limited to the extent necessary for elucidating the position of the person giving the speech.

24.  In the present case the applicants had not attempted to seek such permission. As it appears in the circumstances of the present case and the applicants’ submissions, they deliberately chose to use visual demonstrations without permission, to the detriment of their duties as MPs to obey the rules of conduct of Parliament.

25.  The applicants’ argued that a request would have been futile since the regulation lacked objective criteria, the House Committee had discretionary powers to allow the use of visual demonstrations, no remedy lay against its decision and therefore it could arbitrarily restrict the right to freedom of expression of MPs.

26.  The Court takes note of the applicants’ argument that they had no other option but to disregard the general duty to seek permission to use visual aids and that their conduct had not been disruptive to the functioning of Parliament. However, in the Court’s view, the very least that was expected of the applicants in those circumstances was to be aware of and accept the legal consequences of the unlawful conduct, including the risk of being subject to sanctions.

27.  In addition, the applicants have not put forward any specific reasons to the effect that the banners were necessary to enable A.K., the person giving the speech, to convey the message. They had not indicated that an appeal to the President of the Republic not to sign the Bill in question could not be expressed by A.K. herself during her speech or through some other channel. Thus, the Court does not consider that by sanctioning the applicants’ conduct, the Speaker exercised his powers in a manner breaching the applicants’ right to freedom of expression.

28.  In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the part of the application concerning Mr Horváth out of its list of cases;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 17 October 2024.

 Liv Tigerstedt Gilberto Felici
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applicants:

No.

Applicant’s Name

Year of birth

Nationality

Place of residence

1.

István TUKACS

1958

Hungarian

Nyíregyháza

2.

Ildikó BANGÓNÉ BORBÉLY

1972

Hungarian

Kaba

3.

Zoltán GŐGÖS

1960

Hungarian

Pápa

4.

Anita HERINGES

1984

Hungarian

Paks

5.

Imre HORVÁTH

1944

Deceased 2023

Hungarian

Budapest

6.

István JÓZSA

1953

Hungarian

Diósd

7.

Lajos KORÓZS

1958

Hungarian

Eger

8.

Sándor SZABÓ

1975

Hungarian

Szeged

9.

László SZAKÁCS

1975

Hungarian

Komló

10.

László TELEKI

1959

Hungarian

Nagykanizsa