CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 janvier 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 148 January 2012 Patyi v. Hungary - 35127/08 Judgment 17.1.2012 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Retroactive removal of legal basis of a ban on demonstration: violation   Facts – In February 2007 the applicant applied to a Budapest police department for authorisation to organise a demonstration in a square in front of the Parliament building. The police refused to deal with his application as the area in question had been declared a “security operational zone” ever since events in September 2006. The decision to declare the area a security zone was successfully challenged by another person, K., who after four years’ litigation obtained a court ruling in November 2010 that continuation of the measure was unnecessary and disproportionate. Law – Article 11 (a)   Admissibility (exhaustion of domestic remedies) – The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not challenged the original decision to declare the area in question a security zone. However, the Court was not convinced that the proceedings that had been pursued by K. could be considered an effective remedy requiring exhaustion. Given the instantaneous nature of a political demonstration – the impact of which might rapidly diminish with time – a judicial procedure which produced a favourable decision after more than four years could hardly be regarded as effective or adequate. Conclusion : preliminary objection dismissed (unanimously). (b)   Merits – The Court noted that the police had declared the square a security operational area in 2006 and it had remained so ever since. However, in 2010 the domestic courts had criticised the authorities for failing to assess the necessity and proportionality of that measure after November 2006 and the police had later found that the proportionality of the measure had indeed not been proven. These rulings had thus retroactively removed the legal basis for the impugned measure, irrespective of the fact that they were reached in proceedings initiated by a person other than the applicant. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Szerdahelyi v. Hungary , no.   30385/07, 17   January 2012)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes