CASE OF KARÁCSONY 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 1975, 1981, 1985 and 1977 respectively and live in Budapest. 6. At the material time, the applicants were members of the Hungarian Parliament and the opposition party Párbeszéd Magyarországért. Mr Szilágyi was notary of Parliament. 7. At a plenary session on 30 April 2013, during a pre-agenda speech, Mr Karácsony and Mr Szilágyi showed a billboard in the session hall displaying the text “FIDESZ [the party on government]. You steal, you cheat, and you lie.” On the same day, Mr Szilágyi made a speech in the general debate on Bill no. T/10881 amending Certain Smoking-related Acts, accusing the government parties of corruption. 8. On 6 May 2013 the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Mr Karácsony 50,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 170 euros (EUR)) and Mr Szilágyi HUF 185,520 (approximately EUR 600) for having gravely 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 as regards Mr Szilágyi (a third of his monthly remuneration) be applied, since he was an elected official of Parliament, not just an ordinary MP. A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on 13 May 2013, without a debate. 10. On 21 May 2013 during the final vote on Bill no. T/10881 Mr Dorosz and Ms Szabó presented a billboard with the text “Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia”. 11. On 27 May 2013 the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine them HUF 70,000 (EUR 240) each, for gravely disrupting the plenary proceedings, in application of section 49(4) of Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament. The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary, since similar, seriously disruptive conducts had occurred before. The plenary adopted the proposal on 27 May 2013 without a debate. 12. 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.