CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 octobre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 11 October 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48725/17 Szabolcs SZABÓ against Hungary lodged on 3 July 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the obligation of the applicant, independent Member of Parliament, to pay a fine imposed on him by Parliament on the Speaker’s proposal for his behaviour seriously disrupting the proceedings of a parliamentary session. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, in particular having regard to his role as elected Member of Parliament in participating in debates of public interest and scrutinising decisions of the Government (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos.   42461/13 and 44357/13, ECHR 2016 (extracts))?   2.     If so, did the interference pursue a legitimate aim and was it necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Did the applicant enjoy adequate procedural safeguards to know and challenge the reasons for the limitation on his right to freedom of expression (see Lombardi Vallauri v.   Italy , no.   39128/05, §   46, 20   October 2009)?   3.     Was the scope and the reasoning of the impugned measure sufficiently clear and well-defined, especially in terms of foreseeability of the sanction imposed on the applicant (see Karácsony and Others , cited above, §   124)?