CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2017

.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 } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 10 July 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31573/14 László PÓKA against Hungary lodged on 14 April 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a demonstration planned by the applicant in order to call attention to the dire situation of foreign-currency-loan consumers. On 8 October 2013 he applied to the Budapest Police Department for acquiescence in a demonstration of ongoing nature, from 17   October to 1 November 2013, scheduled in District II of Budapest, in the neighborhood of the Embassy of Israel and in District XII, in the neighborhood of the permanent residence of the Prime Minister. On 10 October 2013 the Budapest Police Department dismissed the application without examination on the merits. It observed that on 2 October 2013 the closure of the area in question had been ordered by the Counterterrorism Centre in view of the visit of the ambassador of Israel and other protected persons. On 14 October 2014, in the course of judicial review, the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court rejected the applicant’s request. It pointed out that if organized, the demonstration would lead to continuous disturbance and unavoidable entrapment of the inhabitants due to its planned length and the narrowness of the chosen location . QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (see Patyi v. Hungary , no. 35127/08, 17 January 2012)?