CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.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 26 August 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54323/22 Eszter NÉMETH against Hungary lodged on 18 November 2022 communicated on 11 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an identity check carried out by the police on the applicant. On 5 April 2017 the applicant demonstrated on Kossuth Lajos Square, adjacent to Parliament House, against legislative amendments related to higher education which had been adopted by Parliament the day before. She was placing tealight candles on the pavement forming the phrase „I stand with CEU”, when two police officers appeared and enquired what she was busy doing. Subsequently, she was called on to produce an identity card. The applicant did not comply but removed the tealight candles and sought to leave the site. Nevertheless, she was halted by the police and, at a repeated request, she presented her identity card. At this time twelve police officers surrounded her. In May 2017, regulatory offence proceedings were instituted against the applicant, but following her appeal, they were later discontinued on procedural grounds. In the meantime, the applicant filed a complaint against the police measure, but to no avail. On appeal, on 17 February 2021 the Budapest Police Department found that the measure was lawful, by relying on specific legislation concerning Kossuth Lajos Square, as a protected national place of remembrance, as well as the suspicion of sanitation offence concerning the tealight candles. On 14 December 2021 the Budapest High Court dismissed her action lodged against the police decision. It found that the police measure did not directly affect her right to freedom of expression. On 5 July 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected her constitutional complaint, finding no connection between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the impugned police measure. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the impugned police measure prevented her from expressing a political opinion, and that the regulatory offence proceedings unduly restricted her rights. 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?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law in terms of Article 10 §   2? Furthermore, was that interference “necessary in a democratic society” in terms of Article 10 § 2 in pursuit of a legitimate aim ( Tatár and Fáber v.   Hungary , nos. 26005/08 and 26160/08, 12 June 2012)?