Case: case_494

Atomic Facts:
[{"fact_id": "F001", "text": "The applicant was born in 1965.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F002", "text": "The applicant lives in Budapest.", "source_paragraph": 5, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F003", "text": "The applicant intended to organise demonstrations in order to call attention to the situation of those having sustained damage originating in a major bankruptcy case which had attracted considerable media attention in Hungary.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F004", "text": "On 5 February 2007 the applicant applied to the Budapest Police Department for acquiescence in a demonstration on 10 March 2007 scheduled in Kossuth Square, in front of Parliament.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F005", "text": "On 5 February 2007 the applicant applied to the Budapest Police Department for acquiescence in a demonstration of ongoing nature, from 10 March until 31 October 2007, scheduled in Kossuth Square, in front of Parliament.", "source_paragraph": 6, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F006", "text": "On 7 February 2007 the Budapest Police Department refused to deal with the applicant's application for acquiescence in a demonstration on 10 March 2007.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F007", "text": "On 7 February 2007 the Budapest Police Department refused to deal with the applicant's application for acquiescence in an ongoing demonstration from 10 March until 31 October 2007.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F008", "text": "On 23 October 2006 the Budapest Police Department declared the area of Kossuth Square, in front of Parliament, a \"security operational zone\" (biztonsági műveleti terület) in view of the tumultuous events in Budapest in September 2006.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F009", "text": "The \"security operational zone\" declaration was, after a prolongation, in place for an indefinite period of time.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F010", "text": "The Budapest Police Department observed that the \"security operational zone\" measure remained outside the Budapest Police Department's competence as regards the prohibition of, or acquiescence in, a demonstration.", "source_paragraph": 7, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F011", "text": "On 5 March 2007 the National Police Commander upheld the Budapest Police Department's decision of 7 February 2007 refusing to deal with the applicant's applications.", "source_paragraph": 8, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F012", "text": "On 14 January 2008 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for judicial review of the police authorities' decisions.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F013", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court's dismissal of the applicant's request for judicial review endorsed in essence the police authorities' reasoning.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F014", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court's decision of 14 January 2008 was served on the applicant on 26 January 2008.", "source_paragraph": 9, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F015", "text": "On 29 January 2007 a Mr K. challenged the Budapest Police Department's decision to declare Kossuth Square a \"security operational zone\".", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F016", "text": "On 14 March 2007 the Budapest Police Commander rejected Mr K.'s complaint challenging the declaration of Kossuth Square as a \"security operational zone\".", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F017", "text": "The Budapest Police Commander's decision of 14 March 2007 rejecting Mr K.'s complaint was quashed by the National Police Commander on 16 April 2007.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F018", "text": "In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 22 June 2007 the Budapest Police Commander again rejected Mr K.'s complaint challenging the declaration of Kossuth Square as a \"security operational zone\".", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F019", "text": "On 19 July 2007 the National Police Commander upheld the Budapest Police Commander's decision of 22 June 2007 rejecting Mr K.'s complaint.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F020", "text": "Mr K. challenged the National Police Commander's ruling of 19 July 2007 in court.", "source_paragraph": 10, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F021", "text": "Mr K.'s court action challenging the National Police Commander's ruling of 19 July 2007 was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F022", "text": "On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the Budapest Regional Court's decision dismissing Mr K.'s action.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F023", "text": "On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the National Police Commander's decision of 19 July 2007.", "source_paragraph": 11, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F024", "text": "In the resumed second-instance administrative proceedings, on 23 December 2009 the National Police Commander again upheld the Budapest Police Commander's decision rejecting Mr K.'s complaint.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F025", "text": "Mr K. requested judicial review of the National Police Commander's decision of 23 December 2009.", "source_paragraph": 12, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F026", "text": "On 11 November 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, in judgment no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9., quashed both the first-instance and the second-instance administrative decisions concerning Mr K.'s complaint about the \"security operational zone\" in Kossuth Square.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F027", "text": "On 11 November 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, in judgment no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9., remitted the case to the Budapest Police Commander.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F028", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court pointed out in judgment no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9. that the impugned administrative decisions did not contain any concrete elements establishing the necessity and proportionality of maintaining the \"security operational zone\" after the prolongation of 22 November 2006.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"]}, {"fact_id": "F029", "text": "The Budapest Regional Court pointed out in judgment no. 27.K.31.354/2010/9. that the impugned administrative decisions did not address Mr K.'s suggestion that the mere fencing-off of Parliament's immediate vicinity — rather than the global ban on Kossuth Square — would have been sufficient in the circumstances.", "source_paragraph": 13, "section_path": ["THE FACTS", "I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE"

Fact Mapping:
{"list1": {"scope": ["F003", "F004", "F005"], "interference": ["F006", "F007", "F008", "F009", "F010"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F008", "F009", "F015", "F026", "F027", "F028", "F030", "F031"], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": []}, "list2": {"scope": ["F004", "F005"], "interference": ["F006", "F007", "F008", "F010"], "prescribed_by_law": ["F008", "F009", "F015", "F026", "F028", "F030", "F031"], "legitimate_aim": [], "necessity": [], "positive_obligation": []}, "list3": ["F004", "F006", "F008", "F026", "F031"]}

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"}}}