CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24731/21 Bence TORDAI against Hungary lodged on 21 September 2021 communicated on 1 December 2025 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 his conduct at the parliamentary session of 1 March 2021. On 11 March 2021 the Speaker decided to reduce the applicant’s remuneration in the amount of four times of his monthly salary, equalling to a total of 8,233,440 Hungarian forints (approximately 21,000 euros), for hindering another member of Parliament, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister at the material time, in his freedom of movement while filming him. When establishing the statutory maximum of the salary deduction, the Speaker considered the applicant’s function as a parliamentary notary as well as the prior fines that had been imposed on him in the given parliamentary term. Subsequently, the applicant unsuccessfully challenged the decision before the Immunity Committee and the plenary Parliament. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the impugned measure was disproportionate and that the procedural safeguards available to challenge the Speaker’s decision were not 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, by the imposition of a fine on him, in particular having regard to his role as an 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, did it pursue a legitimate aim and was it 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)? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify the amount of the fine relevant and sufficient ( ibid ., § 148) and was the measure accompanied by effective and adequate procedural safeguards ( ibid ., §§ 151 and 156-57)?