CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 112 October 2008 Patyi and Others v. Hungary - 5529/05 Judgment 7.10.2008 [Section II] Article 11 Article 11-1 Freedom of peaceful assembly Repeated bans on silent demonstrations outside Prime Minister’s residence: violation   Facts : The applicant, along with other creditors of an insolvent private company, wished to organise a series of silent demonstrations outside the Prime Minister’s private residence in Budapest. After being notified of the demonstration by the applicant, as required by domestic law, the police prohibited it. The applicant sought judicial review of that decision, but the regional court eventually dismissed his application. Meanwhile, he in company with 15 other demonstrators gathered outside the Prime Minister’s house allegedly disguised as tourists and walked past the residence before leaving the scene, without causing any inconvenience to traffic or other pedestrians. The applicant subsequently notified the police of another demonstration for the same reasons and at the same venue. This was again prohibited by the police, who took the view that the pavement was not wide enough to accommodate the demonstration and that they would have needed to close off half the street which with the heavy traffic expected that day – a public holiday – would have considerably disrupted the flow of traffic. The applicant’s request for judicial review was again dismissed. The applicant later notified the police of a further four demonstrations he and the other creditors intended to hold at the same venue, but these were also prohibited on the same grounds. Law : The Government had claimed that the applicant’s assemblies would have seriously hampered the free movement of pedestrians and caused major traffic congestion. However, the Court noted that the planned demonstration had consisted of 20 participants silently standing in line on the pavement outside the Prime Minister’s house. The pavement was approximately five metres wide, sufficient to allow other pedestrians to walk by undisturbed during the demonstrations. Nor were the demonstrators likely to hinder the traffic, especially as on one of the proposed dates the bus service in that street was due to finish at around 4 p.m. Finally, there was no evidence to suggest that the demonstrations would be violent or otherwise represent a danger to public order. In such circumstances, the domestic authorities’ repeated prohibition of the demonstrations in a mechanical reliance on the same reasons failed to strike a fair balance between the rights of those wishing to exercise their freedom of assembly and others whose freedom of movement might have temporarily been disturbed. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes