Case: case_376

Atomic Facts:
[{"fact_id": "F001", "text": "The applicant was born in 1965.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F002", "text": "The applicant lives in Budapest.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F003", "text": "On 14 April 2010 the applicant notified the police that he planned to organise a demonstration on 17 April 2010.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F004", "text": "The demonstration was planned to take place from 2 to 7 p.m. on 17 April 2010.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F005", "text": "The demonstration was planned to take place in front of the Venyige Street prison in Budapest.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F006", "text": "The purpose of the planned demonstration was to draw attention to the 'situation of political prisoners'.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F007", "text": "Venyige Street is a broad cul-de-sac with a service lane.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F008", "text": "On 16 April 2010 the head of the Budapest Police Department banned the planned demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F009", "text": "The head of the Budapest Police Department banned the demonstration on the grounds that traffic could not be diverted to alternative routes, pursuant to section 8(1) of the Assembly Act.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F010", "text": "In the decision banning the demonstration, the head of the Budapest Police Department referred to Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F011", "text": "In the decision banning the demonstration, the head of the Budapest Police Department referred to Article 11 of the Convention.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F012", "text": "In the decision banning the demonstration, the head of the Budapest Police Department referred to Decision no. 55/2001.AB of the Constitutional Court of Hungary.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F013", "text": "On 19 April 2010 the applicant sought a judicial review of the decision banning the demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F014", "text": "The applicant's application for judicial review on 19 April 2010 was made within the statutory time-limit.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F015", "text": "On 22 April 2010 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's case challenging the ban on the demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F016", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court noted that in assessing whether traffic could be diverted to other routes, the Budapest Police Department had reckoned on the participation of some 200 demonstrators, as per the applicant's notification.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F017", "text": "The Budapest Police Department obtained the opinion of a traffic expert before making its decision to ban the demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F018", "text": "The Budapest Police Department established that lawful parking and traffic circulation in the neighbourhood of Venyige Street prison would become impossible should the demonstration take place.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F019", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court agreed with the Budapest Police Department's decision that the right to assembly, although a constitutional fundamental right, is not absolute.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F020", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court held that the right to assembly must not give rise to a violation of the fundamental rights of others and could therefore be restricted.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F021", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court was satisfied that the Budapest Police Department's decision had been lawful because the police had adequately established the facts.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F022", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court was satisfied that the Budapest Police Department's decision had been lawful because the police had complied with the procedural rules.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F023", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court was satisfied that the Budapest Police Department's decision had been lawful because the police had applied clear assessment criteria.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F024", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court was satisfied that the Budapest Police Department's decision had been lawful because the assessment of the evidence had been logical.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}]

Fact Mapping:
{"list1": {"scope": ["F003", "F004", "F005", "F006"], "interference": ["F008", "F009"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F009"], "legitimate_aim": ["F009", "F018"], "necessity": ["F005", "F007", "F009", "F015", "F016", "F017", "F018"], "positive_obligation": []}, "list2": {"scope": ["F003", "F006"], "interference": ["F008"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F009"], "legitimate_aim": ["F009"], "necessity": ["F005", "F007", "F009", "F016"], "positive_obligation": []}, "list3": ["F005", "F007", "F008", "F009"]}

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": "yes", "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": "yes", "discussed": "explicit", "aims": ["prevention_of_disorder", "rights_of_others"]}, "necessity": {"conclusion": "no", "discussed": "explicit"}, "positive_obligation": {"conclusion": null, "discussed": "not_discussed"}}}