CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 janvier 2025

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s31290386 { width:117.7%; border-collapse:collapse } .s68A509F { width:9.84%; 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 } .s48CF9875 { width:31.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sAECEF3EC { width:14.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF83DA51F { width:18.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sED80420C { width:26.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBBD96338 { width:9.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF5D8EC33 { width:31.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9F6B0C3C { width:14.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s59D5C041 { width:18.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3C636E4A { width:26.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 10 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 49654/22 Gergely László ARATÓ and Others against Hungary lodged on 14 October 2022 communicated on 20 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the Speaker of Parliament not to accept justification for the symbolic absence of opposition members of parliament (MPs) from the inaugural session of the National Assembly, who were therefore partly deprived of their remuneration. The applicants are members of an opposition party in the Hungarian Parliament ( Demokratikus Koalíció , DK). The party obtained 16 seats in the 2022 parliamentary elections. It declared the elections illegitimate as, in their opinion, they did not provide equal opportunities for the parties. As a result, on 2 May 2022, the day of the constituent sitting of the National Assembly, DK party members walked out during most of the votes in protest. Mr Ferenc Gyurcsány, the leader of the DK parliamentary group and one of the applicants in the case, provided the Speaker written justification for the applicants’ absences in May 2022, referring to “the performance of public tasks”. On 16 June 2022 the Speaker informed the applicants that he did not accept the justification of their absences. He also noted that as they were absent from more than one quarter of the votes in the Parliament in May 2022, their remunerations for that month would be decreased in proportion to their absences. On 27 June 2022 the applicants were notified of the deductions by the Office of the National Assembly. Complaining under Articles 10 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants submit that the punitive reductions of their remunerations as a consequence of their symbolic speech in Parliament were not prescribed by law, as the Speaker’s unjustified and discretionary decisions were unforeseeable, and they had no remedy against them. They further argue that the procedure in which the justifications of their absences were refused failed to meet the requirements of the procedural safeguards under Article 10 of the Convention. Lastly, relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicants complain about the allegedly discriminatory nature of the above decisions of the Speaker, arguing that the Speaker regularly accepts justifications by other parties. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     (a)     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, by the reduction of their remuneration, in particular having regard to their role as elected members of Parliament participating in debates of public interest and scrutinising decisions of the Government?   (b)     If so, were those interferences prescribed by law, pursuing a legitimate aim and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention (see   Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos. 42461/13 and 44357/13, §§   123-25, 137-39, 141-44 and 146-48, 17 May 2016)? In particular, was the reasoning of the impugned measures sufficiently clear and well-defined, especially in terms of foreseeability of the sanctions imposed on the applicants (see Karácsony and Others , cited above, §   124)? Did the applicants enjoy adequate procedural safeguards to challenge the reasons for the impugned measures (see Karácsony and Others , cited above, § 133)?   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 read in conjunction with Article 10 ( see, for the general principles, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR   2000 ‑ XI)?   3.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression on the ground of their political beliefs, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10, given the allegation that the Speaker has only refused to accept justifications for absences by opposition MPs (see, for the general principles, Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, §§ 88-94, 24 May 2016)?     APPENDIX List of applicants   Application no. 49654/22   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Gergely László ARATÓ 1968 Hungarian Gyál 2. Balázs BARKÓCZI 1980 Hungarian Isaszeg 3. Ferenc DÁVID 1955 Hungarian Budapest 4. Zsolt GRÉCZY 1964 Hungarian Budapest 5. Erzsébet GY. NÉMETH 1962 Hungarian Budapest 6. Ferenc GYURCSÁNY 1961 Hungarian Budapest 7. Olga KÁLMÁN 1968 Hungarian Budapest 8. Zoltán KOMÁROMI 1955 Hungarian Budapest 9. László KORDÁS 1969 Hungarian Budapest 10. Lajos OLÁH 1969 Hungarian Budapest 11. László SEBIÁN-PETROVSZKI 1977 Hungarian Békéscsaba 12. Ágnes VADAI 1974 Hungarian Karcag 13. Zoltán VARGA 1962 Hungarian Debrecen 14. László VARJÚ 1961 Hungarian Budapest