CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Communicated on 19 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 5078/16 Bernadett SZÉL and others against Hungary lodged on 5 January 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are opposition members of Parliament. At the parliamentary session of 6 July 2015, during the pre-agenda speech of the first applicant, they displayed banners drawing attention to the problems of low salaries and migration. The Speaker took away the first applicant’s word by switching off her microphone and asked the applicants to remove the banners. Although they complied with the Speaker’s request, the first applicant was unable to continue her speech. The applicants complain that restrictions on their non-verbal expression in the parliament and the denial of the first applicant’s right to speak without a warning violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. They also maintain that under domestic law no remedy lay against the imposed restrictions, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. 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? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 (see, mutatis mutandis , Szanyi v. Hungary , no. 35493/13, §§ 26-28 and 33-46, 8   November 2016, and Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos.   42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 137-147 and 155, 17 May 2016)?   2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for the alleged violation of their freedom of expression, in accordance with Article 13 of the Convention?