CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 juin 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA94D939 { width:115.74%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA66CC3C2 { width:6.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s3E6C4B74 { width:31.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37B231 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6835B238 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD1288894 { width:26.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s93ADA828 { width:6.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s601607AE { width:31.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s134F8E45 { width:20%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB145D406 { width:15%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1BA87235 { width:26.66%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 19 June 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 75465/17 István TUKÁCS and Others against Hungary lodged on 18 October 2017 communicated on 1 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision, on 10 April 2017, of the Speaker of Parliament to reduce the monthly renumeration of the applicants, members of Parliament, for their conduct during the speech delivered before the debate on the agenda by another member of Parliament. Applicants Mr Tukács, Mr   Teleki, Mr Szakács, Mr Szabó and Mr Józsa were fined 50,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 130 euros (EUR)) and applicants Ms Bangóné, Ms Heringes, Mr Korózs, Mr Gőgös and Mr Horváth were fined HUF   100,000 (approximately EUR 260). The applicants unsuccessfully challenged the Speaker’s decisions before the Committee of Immunities and subsequently before the plenary Parliament. The plenary upheld the decisions by a majority during its sessions on 30 May 2017. The applicants complain under Articles 10 and 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, §§ 137-47 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?     LIST OF APPLICANTS   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. István TUKÁCS 1958 Hungarian Nyíregyháza 2. Ildikó BANGÓNÉ BORBÉLY 1972 Hungarian Kaba 3. Zoltán GŐGÖS 1960 Hungarian Pápa 4. Anita HERINGES 1984 Hungarian Paks 5. Imre HORVÁTH 1944 Hungarian Budapest 6. István JÓZSA 1953 Hungarian Diósd 7. Lajos KORÓZS 1958 Hungarian Eger 8. Sándor SZABÓ 1975 Hungarian Szeged 9. László SZAKÁCS 1975 Hungarian Komló 10. László TELEKI 1959 Hungarian Nagykanizsa