CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .sCC611B7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 12 November 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 15543/22 Tímea SZABÓ against Hungary lodged on 16 March 2022 communicated on 21 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the decision of the Speaker of Parliament to fine the applicant, an opposition member of Parliament, for her conduct during a pre-agenda speech delivered by another member of Parliament. The applicant put up a banner on the pulpit and interrupted several times the response by the State Secretary to the applicant’s previous speech. On 30   June 2021 the Speaker decided to reduce her remuneration by 9,686,400   Hungarian forints (approximately 27,000 euros), four times her monthly salary. The Speaker determined the amount of the fine in the light of the seriousness of the infringement of the Rules of Parliament ( Házszabály ) and the fact that the applicant had been previously sanctioned for similar disorderly conduct. The applicant unsuccessfully contested the decision before the Immunity Committee and the plenary Parliament. Complaining under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant submits that the fine imposed by the Speaker was unnecessary and blatantly disproportionate, and that the procedural safeguards available to her to challenge it could not be considered appropriate or sufficient.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention, in particular having regard to her role as elected member of Parliament participating in debates of public interest and scrutinising decisions of the Government?   2.     If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2 (see Karácsony and Others v. Hungary [GC], nos.   42461/13 and 44357/13, §§ 137-47, 17 May 2016)? Were the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the amount of the fine relevant and sufficient (ibid. § 148)?