Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 177
September 2014
Karácsony and Others v. Hungary - 42461/13
Judgment 16.9.2014 [Section II]
Article 10
Article 10-1
Freedom of expression
Fine imposed on opposition MPs for showing billboards during parliamentary votes
Imposition d’amendes à des parlementaires de l’opposition condamnés pour avoir montré des affiches pendant des votes : violation
Facts – At the material time, all four applicants were members of the opposition in the Hungarian Parliament. On a motion introduced by the Speaker, they were fined amounts ranging from EUR 170 to EUR 600 for having gravely disrupted parliamentary proceedings after they displayed billboards accusing the government of corruption. The fines were imposed by the Parliament in plenary session without a debate.
In their application to the European Court, the applicants complained that the decisions to fine them for showing the billboards during the voting procedure had violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 10.
Law – Article 10: The fines imposed on the applicants constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. The interference was prescribed by law and pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the rights of others and preventing disorder.
In assessing the proportionality of the interference, the Court considered the nature of the speech in the context of the legitimate aim sought to be protected, the nature of the impact of the impugned expression on order in parliament and the authority of parliament, the process applied and the sanctions imposed.
(a)  Nature of the expression: The views expressed by the applicants concerned a public matter of the highest political importance that was directly related to the functioning of a democracy. Their main purpose was to criticise the parliamentary majority and the Government, rather than to personally attack one of the MPs or any other individual. Although they had had an opportunity to express their views on the bill subject of the vote, showing the billboards was also part of their political expression. The expressive acts of protest could not be equated in their function and effect with the speech opportunity that had been granted to them during the debate. Given the importance of public exposure to minority views as an integral function of democracy, minority members should have leeway to express their views, including in a non-verbal fashion, and considering the symbolic aspects of their speech, within a reasonable framework.
(b)  Impact on parliamentary authority and order: The Court noted the importance of orderly conduct in parliament and the importance of respect for constitutional institutions in a democratic society. However, it was satisfied that the applicants’ display of the billboards had not created a significant disturbance: they had not delayed or prevented the parliamentary debate or vote, and had not disturbed the actual functioning of parliament. Their accusations against the Government’s policies had not challenged or undermined the authority of the Parliament, or exposed it to ridicule or disrespect.
(c)  Procedure: Given the State’s margin of appreciation in this sphere, the arguably partisan nature of the sanctioning procedure did not in itself constitute a violation of the Convention. However, the Court identified a number of shortcomings in the procedure that was followed: the applicants were not given any warning that sanctions might be imposed, the Speaker did not specify, even less give reasons, why their conduct was “gravely offensive”, the decision to impose fines was taken without debate at a plenary session, which could not be considered an appropriate forum for examining issues of fact and law, assessing evidence and making a legal characterisation of the facts.
(d)  Sanctions: While not atypical in parliamentary law in matters of personal affront, the fines imposed on the applicants could be seen as having a chilling effect on opposition or minority speech and expressions in Parliament.
In sum, there had been no compelling reason for the interference since parliamentary authority and order had not been seriously affected and it had not been shown that those interests had on balance been weightier than the opposition’s right to freedom of expression. The interference could not, therefore, be considered to have been “necessary in a democratic society”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 170, 600, 240 and 240 to the first, second, third and fourth applicants respectively in respect of 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