Case: case_514

Atomic Facts:
[{"fact_id": "F001", "text": "The applicant was born in 1969.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F002", "text": "The applicant lives in Tököl.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F003", "text": "The applicant was represented by Mr T. Hüttl, a lawyer practising in Budapest.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F004", "text": "Mr T. Hüttl was acting on behalf of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union.", "source_paragraph": 2, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F005", "text": "The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice.", "source_paragraph": 3, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F006", "text": "The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.", "source_paragraph": 4, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F007", "text": "The applicant planned a demonstration in order to draw attention to the plight of borrowers of foreign-currency loans.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F008", "text": "On 8 October 2013 the applicant applied to the Budapest Police Department for acquiescence in a demonstration lasting from 17 October until 1 November 2013.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F009", "text": "The demonstration applied for on 8 October 2013 was scheduled to be held in District II of Budapest, in the neighbourhood of the embassy of Israel.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F010", "text": "The demonstration applied for on 8 October 2013 was also scheduled to be held in District XII of Budapest, in the neighbourhood of the permanent residence of the Prime Minister.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F011", "text": "On 10 October 2013 the Budapest Police Department dismissed the applicant's application for acquiescence in the demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F012", "text": "The Budapest Police Department observed that on 2 October 2013, closure of the District XII venue had been ordered by the Counter-Terrorism Centre.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F013", "text": "The closure of the District XII venue was ordered by the Counter-Terrorism Centre in view of the impending visit of the ambassador of Israel and other protected persons.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F014", "text": "The closure measure of the District XII venue was in place from 3 October until 31 December 2013.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F015", "text": "The Budapest Police Department examined the applicant's application as covering a single demonstration to be held in two locations.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F016", "text": "Because the Budapest Police Department examined the application as covering a single demonstration to be held in two locations, the District II location was not examined separately.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F017", "text": "In dismissing the applicant's case, the Budapest Police Department drew the applicant's attention to a venue adjacent to the District XII location where an assembly would have been permissible.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F018", "text": "The applicant sought judicial review of the Budapest Police Department's decision of 10 October 2013.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F019", "text": "On 14 October 2013 the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court reviewed the entire case.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F020", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court noted that the locations selected by the applicant had no symbolic significance.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F021", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court noted that the locations selected by the applicant were part of residential zones with narrow streets.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F022", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court noted that a demonstration lasting for the period intended would potentially involve crowds, meaning that tents, food stands, loudspeakers and portable toilets would need to be set up.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F023", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court noted that a demonstration lasting for the period intended would generate much noise.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F024", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court noted that the demonstration would create a situation capable of affecting the private life of residents.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F025", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court further stated that the applicant's case was to be tested in relation to the necessity and the proportionality of the restriction complained of.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F026", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court observed that there were a number of competing rights at stake: the applicant's right to freedom of assembly, on the one hand; and the rights of others to respect for their private life and free movement, and an official dignitary's right to statutory protection, on the other.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F027", "text": "In the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court's view, the rights of others to respect for their private life and free movement, and an official dignitary's right to statutory protection, outweighed the applicant's interest in having the demonstration at the desired locations.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F028", "text": "The Budapest Administrative and Labour Court held that the demonstration therefore had to be prohibited.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F029", "text": "The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the decision of the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F030", "text": "On 9 June 2015 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant's constitutional complaint admissible.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F031", "text": "The Constitutional Court gave its decision no. 354/2019 (XII.16.) AB on 16 December 2019.", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F032", "text": "The Constitutional Court observed that the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court had construed the rights to respect for private life and free movement, as well as an official dignitary's right to statutory protection, as grounds for restricting the right to freedom of assembly.", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F033", "text": "The Constitutional Court found that the Budapest Administrative and Labour Court's reasoning amounted to an unlawful broadening of the scope of exhaustive reasons for the prohibition of a demonstration as contemplated in section 8(1) of the Assembly Act (Act no. III of 1989).", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F034", "text": "New regulations had meanwhile been enacted extending the scope of potential reasons for the prohibition of a demonstration under the Assembly Act (Act no. III of 1989).", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F035", "text": "The Constitutional Court was satisfied that the applicant's constitutional complaint had no further purpose and discontinued the case.", "source_paragraph": 14, "section_path": ["THE FACTS"]}, {"fact_id": "F036", "text": "Section 8(1) of the Assembly Act (Act no. III o

Fact Mapping:
{"list1": {"scope": ["F007", "F008"], "interference": ["F011", "F028"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F036", "F026", "F027", "F028", "F032", "F033"], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": []}, "list2": {"scope": ["F007", "F008"], "interference": ["F011", "F028"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F036", "F032", "F033"], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": []}, "list3": ["F007", "F008", "F011", "F028", "F036", "F032", "F033"]}

Conclusion:
{"violated": true, "elements": {"scope": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_assembly_exists": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_participation": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "scope_peaceful": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "implied"}, "interference": {"conclusion": "yes", "discussed": "explicit"}, "prescribed_by_law": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "explicit"}, "prescribed_by_law_foreseeable": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "prescribed_by_law_accessible": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "prescribed_by_law_safeguards": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "legitimate_aim": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed", "aims": []}, "necessity": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}, "positive_obligation": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}}}