CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s858CF1B6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11.5pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4D6B4573 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt; list-style-position:inside } .sF8ED3D27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11.5pt } .s643F6B71 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; font-size:11.5pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt }   Communicated on 4 March 2015   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59588/12 András BÉRES and Others against Hungary and 2 other applications (see list appended) STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 23 December 2011 the applicants participated in a demonstration organised by the political party “Politics Can Be Different’” ( Lehet Más a Politika ). The demonstrators blocked the entrance of the car park of the Parliament by chaining themselves to each other and to the concrete columns situated next to the entrance. Following the incident the Budapest Chief Police Department opened criminal investigations against twenty nine persons, including the applicants, on charges of violation of personal liberty under section 175(1) of the [old] Criminal Code. On 9 March 2012 Parliament adopted Act no. XII of 2012 on the Exercise of Amnesty, which stated as follows: “On the occasion of the entry into force of the Fundamental Law of Hungary, Parliament exercises its power under section 1(2) point j) of the Fundamental Law to grant amnesty under the following terms: 1. No criminal procedure can be instituted or continued on account of the criminal act of violation of personal liberty within the meaning of section 175 of Act no. IV of 1978 (Criminal Code), which was committed on 23 December 2011 by several persons who blocked the restricted area around Parliament by chaining themselves to each other and to the gates. 2. Any person convicted of the criminal act specified in section 1 prior to the entery into force of the present Act shall be exempted from punishment and deleted from the criminal register. 3. The amnesty shall extend to any minor offence committed in connection with the blocking of the entrance of the restricted area around Parliament by persons chaining themselves to each other and to the gates. 4. The amnesty shall extend to any confiscated object used for committing the criminal acts defined in the present Act (section 77(1) point a) of the Criminal Code). 5. The present Act enters into force on the day following its promulgation.” The Act on the Exercise of Amnesty entered into force on 10   March   2012. On 29 March 2012 the Budapest Chief Police Department discontinued the criminal investigation against the twenty nine suspects pursuant to sections 190(1) point e) and (2) on the ground that they had been granted amnesty. On 6 September 2012 the applicants Ms Bende, Ms Kalocsai, Ms   Ámon and Ms Székelyné Rákosi and Messrs Moldován and Gajárszki lodged constitutional complaints with the Constitutional Court requesting that court to declare sections 1, 2 and 4 of the Act on the Exercise of Amnesty unconstitutional as infringing their right to reputation and the principle of presumption of innocence. The Constitutional Court declared the complaints inadmissible. According to the reasoning of the decision, the complaints did not raise any constitutional law issues of “fundamental importance”, since they were based on the petitioners’ erroneous interpretation of the law. In any event, the complaints were time-barred since they were lodged outside the 180 days’ time-limit following the entering into force of the legislation. COMPLAINT The applicants maintain that the Act on the Exercise of Amnesty was a legislative act emanating from a State authority which purported to confirm that they had committed a crime, whereas criminal proceedings have never established their criminal responsibility. This constitutes in their view a breach of their rights to presumption of innocence under Article 6 § 2 and to reputation under Article 8 of the Convention.     QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the text of the Act on the Exercise of Amnesty compatible with Articles 6 § 2 and 8 of the Convention?   2.     Is Article 6 § 2 of the Convention applicable in the present case? If yes, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by this provision, respected?   3:     Was the language of the impugned legislation of such a seriously offensive nature that it had an inevitable direct effect on the applicants’ private life (see Karakó v. Hungary , no. 39311/05, § 23, 28 April 2009)?   Appendix   No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   59588/12 10/09/2012 András BÉRES 01/06/1969 Budapest Ambrus GERŐ 24/03/1986 Göd   Balázs POLÁKOVICS 04/12/1983 Budapest   Ágnes SEREGÉLY 04/01/1982 Budapest   Levente STORK 23/05/1988 Budapest Dániel András KARSAI   59632/12 10/09/2012 Anna BENDE 01/09/1981 Dunakeszi   Kinga Regina KALOCSAI 01/12/1986 Budapest   László MOLDOVÁN 09/05/1959 Budapest Tamás FAZEKAS   59865/12 10/09/2012 Katalin ÁMON 22/01/1987 Budapest   Áron GAJÁRSZKI 12/01/1976 Budapest   Judit SZÉKELYNÉ RÁKOSI 05/07/1956 Budapest András Kristóf KÁDÁR