CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 février 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 } Published on 24 February 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24793/21 Péter JAKAB against Hungary lodged on 23 April 2021 communicated on 3 February 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Speaker’s decision to fine the applicant, an opposition member of Parliament, for his conduct at the parliamentary session of 19 October 2020, attempting to hand over a bag of potatoes to the Prime Minister. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged before the Immunity Committee and Parliament the Speaker’s decisions to impose a fine on him in the amount of two months of his remuneration. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the sanction imposed on him amounted to a breach of his right to freedom of expression. He further complains that there was no effective remedy available to him to challenge the sanction sustained, in breach of Article   13 read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention by the fine imposed on the applicant (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos.   42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 137-162, 17   May 2016, and Ikotity and Others v.   Hungary (no.   50012/17, §§ 33-44, 5   October 2023)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective remedy for the alleged violation of his freedom of expression, as required by Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 of the Convention ( see, for the general principles, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 157, ECHR   2000-XI)?