CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 44357/13 Bernadett SZÉL and Others against Hungary lodged on 5 July 2013 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicants, Ms Bernadett Szél (born in 1977), Ms Ágnes Osztolykán (born in 1974) and Ms Szilvia Lengyel (born in 1971) are Hungarian 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. On 21 June 2013 Parliament held a final vote on a new law concerning the transfer of agricultural lands and forestry lands. The disputed legislative proposal generated intense reactions among opposition members. The applicants, in protest against the new law, presented a banner in the session hall and used a megaphone during the vote. On 25 June 2013 the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Ms Szél and Ms Lengyel respectively 131,410 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 430 euros (EUR)) and Ms Osztolykán HUF 154,600 (approximately EUR   510) for having seriously disrupted the plenary proceedings. The Speaker reasoned that the maximum fine (a third of their monthly fee) was to be applied, given the extraordinary situation that had developed during the voting process. A decision approving the proposal was adopted by the plenary on 26 June 2013. COMPLAINTS The applicants allege that the decisions to fine them for displaying a banner during a plenary voting 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 applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, in particular having regard to their role as elected Members of Parliament in participating in debates of public interest and scrutinising 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.     Did the applicants 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 measures in question?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression on the ground of their political beliefs, 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 Members of Parliament in the Member States of the Council of Europe.