He found it unlawful and therefore overturned the ruling of the Constitutional Court (Ab) of the Budapest Metropolitan Administrative and Labor Court and the administrative decision of the Budapest Police Headquarters prohibiting a unitary council on foreign currency loan contracts in front of the Courthouse in a timely manner, according to a decision made Monday on Ab’s website.
It was recalled in the document that, pursuant to the law on assembly rights,
An event had been announced for the sidewalk on Mike Handel 25 in the capital by June 16, 2014. The demonstration would have drawn attention to the banks’ activities, as the President of the Mansion convened a legal unit meeting that day to resolve certain issues related to foreign currency loan agreements. The event was banned by the police and the court rejected the request for a police decision.
The Constitutional Court found the petitioner’s constitutional complaint well founded. In their ruling, the constitutional judges emphasized in principle that the trial court should pay close attention to the proper fulfillment of the duty to state reasons.
Ab considered the failure to conduct the conciliation proceedings to be a serious violation of the fundamental right to assembly, which had not been remedied during the judicial review. According to Mr Ab, the court misinterpreted the constitutional purpose of the conciliation procedure and failed to take account of its guaranteeing nature,
Which protects fundamental rights.
The Society for Freedoms (LIBE), a law enforcement organization, said in a statement Tuesday responding to the Ab decision that the most important result of the ruling is that the police will no longer be able to ban demonstrations without consulting the organizers.
The JAKO recalled that their complainant’s report had been banned by the police on the grounds that the event would have seriously endangered the smooth functioning of the judiciary. Due to an unnecessary restriction of the right to peaceful assembly, the JAKO appealed to Ab. The organization said Ab had largely shared their views.
The JAKO emphasized that “serious threat to the smooth functioning of courts” is a less commonly used reason for prohibiting demonstrations. According to the Ab decision, peaceful demonstrations alone cannot be interpreted as illegitimate pressure, they added. Ab has affirmed that demonstrations are an essential part of democratic public life, regardless of the fact that almost all of them cause some disruption and rarely give rise to resentment – for example, statement.
Loan according to their assessment,
According to JAKO, Ab made it clear that the rule that the police should consult with the applicant before issuing a prohibition order in order to avoid the prohibition is not only a formal obligation to provide information, but is of the rule is not prescribed by law but by an implementing regulation, one of the guarantees that the most severe restriction on the exercise of the law is not arbitrary – they stated in their communication.