CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 14 March 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 58274/15 Zoltán KÖRTVÉLYESSY against Hungary lodged on 21 September 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant intended to organise a demonstration on 17 April 2010 between 2   p.m. and 7 p.m. in front of a prison located in Budapest. The authorities refused the event holding that it would have impeded the traffic inordinately. The applicant complains under Articles 11, 14 and 17 of the Convention that the authorities’ overly restrictive interpretation of the notion of “no alternative traffic route” resulted in a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of assembly.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of peaceful assembly, contrary to Article 11 of the Convention (cf. Patyi and Others v.   Hungary , no. 5529/05, 7 October 2008).