CASE OF KARÁCSONY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Karácsony and Others v. Hungary (no. 42461/13) and Szél and Others v. Hungary (no. 44357/13) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-07-08 00:00:00)
Application no.: 42461/13
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-09-16 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0916JUD004246113
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 10;10-1;10-2;13;13+10-1;35;35-1;41
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano
Represented by: KARSAI D.
Issue: Section 2(2) and 49(4) of the Act no. XXXVI of 2012 on Parliament (“Ogytv”)
Strasbourg case-law cited: A. v. the United Kingdom, no. 35373/97, § 77, ECHR 2002 X;Alekseyev v. Russia, nos. 4916/07, 25924/08 and 14599/09, § 80, 21 October 2010;Association Ekin v. France, no. 39288/98, ECHR 2001-VIII;Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131;C.G.I.L. and Cofferati v. Italy, no. 46967/07, 24 February 2009;Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 76, Series A no. 80;Chauvy and Others v. France, no. 64915/01, § 70, ECHR 2004-VI;Cordova v. Italy (no. 1), no. 40877/98, ECHR 2003 I;Cordova v. Italy (no. 2), no. 45649/99, ECHR 2003 I (extracts);Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey, no. 28255/07, § 59, 8 October 2013;Demicoli v. Malta, 27 August 1991, § 39, Series A no. 210;Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032/95, § 74, ECHR 2001-VIII;Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, § 49, Series A no. 24;Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, no. 24746/94, § 154, ECHR 2001 III (extracts);Igor Kabanov v. Russia, no. 8921/05, § 52, 3 February 2011;Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, ECHR 2000-VII, § 97;Jersild v. Denmark, 23 September 1994, § 31, Series A no. 298;Jerusalem v. Austria no. 26958/95, §§ 36 and 40, ECHR 2001-II;Kart v. Turkey [GC], no. 8917/05, §§ 81-82, ECHR 2009 (extracts);Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-46, 20 October 2009;Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1), 23 May 1991, § 57, Series A no. 204;Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, 26 November 1991, § 59, Series A no. 216;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 122, ECHR 2013;Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 39, ECHR 2003-V;Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98 and 41344/98, § 89, ECHR 2003 II;Savino and Others v. Italy, nos. 17214/05, 20329/05 and 42113/04, §§ 91-93, 28 April 2009;Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006;Sergey Kuznetsov v. Russia, no. 10877/04, § 45, 23 October 2008;Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom, no. 68416/01, § 95, ECHR 2005-II;Sürek v. Turkey (no. 1) [GC], no. 26682/95, § 61, ECHR 1999-IV;Tsalkitzis v. Greece, no. 11801/04, 16 November 2006;Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954/10, § 22, 19 July 2011;Z. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29392/95, § 109, ECHR 2001 V;Zana v. Turkey, 25 November 1997, § 51, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑VII
External sources: Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament;Rules of the House of the French Assemblée Nationale

Conclusion: Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Violation of Article 13+10-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General};Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award
Separate opinion: TRUE