Tatar and Faber v. Hungary - 26005/08 (Information Note) [2012] ECHR 1681 (15 June 2012)

Tatar and Faber v. Hungary - 26005/08 (Information Note) [2012] ECHR 1681 (15 June 2012)

The applicants' protest, involving only two people and lasting 13 minutes, was an expression rather than an assembly. The authorities' classification of the event as an assembly and the resulting fine constituted an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression, as there was no risk to public order or rights of others. The authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 1681
Parties
Applicant: Tatár; Applicant: Fáber; Respondent: Hungary
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment
Outcome
violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Illegal Assembly, Prior Notification of Assemblies
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Freedom of Expression Illegal Assembly Prior Notification of Assemblies

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tatár

Applicant

Fáber

Applicant

Hungary

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' protest constituted an assembly requiring prior notification under national law
  2. 2 Whether the conviction and fine for illegal assembly violated Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' protest, involving only two people and lasting 13 minutes, was an expression rather than an assembly. The authorities' classification of the event as an assembly and the resulting fine constituted an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression, as there was no risk to public order or rights of others. The authorities failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for the interference.

Court Disposition

violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression)

Orders

  • Hungary to pay EUR 1,500 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage