CASE OF SZÉL AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano
5. The applicants were born in 1977, 1974 and 1971 and live in Budakeszi, Budapest and Gödöllő, respectively. 6. At the material time, the applicants were members of the Hungarian Parliament and the opposition party LMP. 7. On 21 June 2013 Parliament held a final vote on a new law, Bill no. T/7979 on Transfer of Agricultural Lands and Lands of Forestry. The legislative proposal was quite controversial and generated intense reactions among opposition members. In protest during the final vote on the bill, Ms Lengyel placed a small, golden wheelbarrow filled with soil on the table in front of the Prime Minister, while Ms Szél and Ms Osztolykán stretched a banner containing the inscription “Land distribution instead of land robbery!” in front of the Speaker’s pulpit; meanwhile, Ms Lengyel used a megaphone to speak. She had previously delivered two speeches during the detailed debate and one speech during the final debate on the bill, filing three amending motions, and introduced two amending proposals just before the final vote. 8. On 25 June 2013 the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Ms Szél and Ms Lengyel respectively 131,410 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 430 euros (EUR)) and Ms Osztolykán HUF 154,600 (approximately EUR 510) for having seriously disrupted the plenary proceedings, in application of section 49(4) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament. 9. The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine (a third of their monthly remuneration) was to be applied, given the extraordinary situation that had developed during the voting process. The reason given by the Speaker was that the applicants had gravely disrupted the plenary’s work by displaying their poster and using a megaphone. A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on 26 June 2013, without a debate. 10. A constitutional complaint was filed, concerning a sanction for disruptive conduct, by MP E.N., a member of the opposition party Jobbik, and rejected by the Constitutional Court on 4 November 2013 (decision nos. 3206/2013. (XI.18.) AB and 3207/2013. (XI.18.) AB); see paragraph 16 below). The Constitutional Court found that MP E.N. had been fined under sections 48(3) and (6), 50(1) and 52(2) – rather than section 49(4) – of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament. It held in particular that the restrictions imposed on him for conduct falling under the above provisions – that is, “gravely offensive expression” – were in compliance with the Fundamental Law. His complaint in respect of section 49(4) was rejected because this provision, concerning “gravely offensive conduct”, was not applicable in that case. The Constitutional Court went on to observe that there was no remedy available to that complainant against the measure. Lastly, the Constitutional Court held that parliamentary disciplinary law concerned Parliament’s interior business and the MPs’ conduct as parliamentarians, rather than citizens’ rights or obligations; and that therefore no requirement of a remedy against a parliamentary disciplinary measure could be deduced from Article XXVIII(7) of the Fundamental Law.