MANDLI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - 63164/16 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} : Fourth Section) [2020] ECHR 337 (26 May 2020)

MANDLI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - 63164/16 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} : Fourth Section) [2020] ECHR 337 (26 May 2020)

The suspension of the applicants’ accreditation was not accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards, such as the possibility to be involved in the decision-making process or to challenge the sanction, nor was the duration of the sanction specified. Although the interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, it was not necessary in a democratic society due to the lack of effective safeguards against abuse. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Citation
[2020] ECHR 337
Parties
Applicants: Mándli and Others; Respondent: Hungarian Government
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
26 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; no separate examination of Articles 6 and 13 necessary.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Parliamentary Procedure, Journalistic Access, Procedural Safeguards
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Parliamentary Procedure Journalistic Access Procedural Safeguards

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mándli and Others

Applicants

Hungarian Government

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suspension of journalists’ accreditation to enter Parliament for conducting interviews and video recordings outside designated areas violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the lack of procedural safeguards and remedies against the suspension constituted a violation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

The suspension of the applicants’ accreditation was not accompanied by adequate procedural safeguards, such as the possibility to be involved in the decision-making process or to challenge the sanction, nor was the duration of the sanction specified. Although the interference was prescribed by law and pursued legitimate aims, it was not necessary in a democratic society due to the lack of effective safeguards against abuse. Therefore, there was a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; no separate examination of Articles 6 and 13 necessary.

Orders

  • Finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.
  • Hungary to pay EUR 4,575 plus VAT for costs and expenses to the applicants.