CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 novembre 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 } Published on 18 December 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32272/21 SZIVÁRVÁNY MISSZIÓ ALAPÍTVÁNY against Hungary lodged on 15 June 2021 communicated on 27 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to demonstration during the Covid-19 pandemic. On 10 November 2020 the Hungarian Government adopted Decree no.   484/2020. (XI. 10.) setting out the specific measures introduced to prevent and fight the spread of the corona virus. Those measures included a ban on all public assemblies. The ban, due to its numerous prolongations, was in effect until 14 June 2021. The applicant, which is a foundation promoting equality for LGBTI persons, notified the police that on 10 December 2020 it was planning to hold a demonstration near the building of Parliament to protest against recent legislative changes curtailing the rights of LGBTI persons. A maximum of 30 participants were to sit in cars wearing masks and express their dissent with the use of signs and honking. The police prohibited the demonstration on the ground of the ban in force. On 15 December 2020 the Kúria rejected the applicant’s request to quash the administrative decision and to refer the case to the Constitutional Court to review the ban’s constitutionality. It found that the decision, which was based on the legal provision prohibiting assemblies during the state of emergency in place, were lawful and that this general prohibition precluded the police from considering the particular circumstances of the individual case. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was to no avail. The Constitutional Court held that as the exercise of freedom of assembly posed a high risk to the spread of the pandemic, a temporary ban on it could be considered a necessary restriction (decision no. 23/2021. (VII. 13.) AB). In view of the particular time of the planned demonstration, that is, at the height of a new wave of the pandemic it did not find the general ban on assemblies to be unconstitutional. The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that the blanket Governmental ban on public assemblies and the ensuing domestic decisions prohibiting its planned demonstration to take place constituted an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with its right to freedom of assembly. 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? In particular, was the alleged interference “prescribed by law” and “necessary in a democratic society” to protect a legitimate aim, as required by Article 11 §   2 of the Convention?