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. 50723/21 Sándor JÁMBOR against Hungary lodged on 30 September 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. On 21 March 2021 the applicant informed the police of his intention to hold a demonstration on 26 March 2021, with the participation of a maximum of 10 individuals in separate cars, wearing masks and avoiding any physical contact with others. The participants wished to express their criticism of the Government’s handling of the pandemic, with the use of loudspeakers. The police prohibited the demonstration on the ground of the ban in force. On 30 March 2021 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, was 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 referred back to its previous decision (no. 23/2021. (VII. 13.) AB) in which it did not find the general ban on assemblies to be unconstitutional at the particular time, that is, at the height of a new wave of the pandemic. The applicant complains under Article 11 of the Convention that the blanket Governmental ban on public assemblies and the ensuing domestic decisions prohibiting his planned demonstration to take place constituted an unnecessary and disproportionate interference with his 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?