CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 3 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 44390/16 Krisztián VINCZE against Hungary lodged on 26 July 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns demonstrations planned by the applicant in order to call attention to the dire situation of foreign-currency-loan consumers. On 9   December 2014 he applied to the Budapest Police Department for authorisation of the demonstrations, scheduled, among other locations, in front of the Kúria and of prominent public figures’ residences in Budapest, for 19   December 2014. Following conciliation procedure with the police on 9   December 2014 the applicant modified the disposition of the demonstrations; nevertheless, on that same day the police prohibited the events regarding the above locations. On 16   December 2014, in the course of judicial review, the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court rejected the applicant’s complaint. On 12   July 2016 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint on the merits. 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 (see Patyi and Others v.   Hungary , no. 5529/05, §§ 37-45, 7   October   2008)?