CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2017

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 13 January 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 201/17 MAGYAR KÉTFARKÚ KUTYA PÁRT against Hungary lodged on 16 December 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the National Election Commission, as upheld by the Kúria , restraining the applicant political party from calling on voters to post anonymously marked ballot papers through a mobile phone application. In the context of the controversial referendum on immigration, the applicant political party advertised through its Facebook page the mobile phone application “Cast an invalid vote”, enabling voters to upload photos of their ballot papers. The domestic authorities found that the applicant political party’s activity infringed the principle of the prohibition of abuse of rights, enshrined in section 2 (1) e) of Act no. XXXVI of 2013 (Electoral Procedure Acts) and ordered it to pay a fine in the amount of 100,000   Hungarian forints (approximately 320 euros). The Kúria found that although voters were entitled to express their opinions in the course of the electoral process, the applicant political party had not exercise this right in good faith and in compliance with its purpose.   QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant party’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?