CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16528/23 Sára Luca BARTHA against Hungary lodged on 13 April 2023 communicated on 28 January 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the identity check of the applicant by the police. At about 11 a.m. on 5 February 2021 the applicant was walking with a friend in a busy district of Budapest. They were stopped, checked and searched by two police officers. Apparently, the police officers have not told the applicant the reasons for the measure. Nothing incriminating was found, and the applicant was allowed to go on her way. The applicant sought to challenge the legality of the identity check and search before the administrative authorities and subsequently before the domestic courts. The Budapest High Court found that the search of the applicant’s clothes had been unlawful but dismissed the remainder of her action. The judgment was upheld by the Kúria on 8 June 2022. The applicant’s constitutional complaint was dismissed on 13 December 2022. The applicant complains that she was stopped for an identity check by the police in violation of her rights under Article 8 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference pursuing a legitimate aim and necessary in terms of Article   8   §   2 (see for comparison   Gillan and Quinton v.   the   United   Kingdom , no.   4158/05, §§ 63-64 and §§ 85-87, ECHR   2010 ‑ ... (extracts))?