Anterior 8 / 8 Próximo

2022. 14. szám 1341 [45] 5. Tekintettel arra, hogy az Alkotmánybíróság a támadott bírósági ítéleteket megsemmisítette, a harmadfokú ítélet végrehajtásának felfüggesztéséről nem kellett rendelkeznie. Budapest, 2022. május 3. Dr. Schanda Balázs s. k., tanácsvezető, előadó alkotmánybíró Dr. Handó Tünde s. k., Dr. Márki Zoltán s. k., alkotmánybíró alkotmánybíró Dr. Szívós Mária s. k., alkotmánybíró Alkotmánybírósági ügyszám: IV/3605/2021. ••• Dr. Schanda Balázs s. k., tanácsvezető alkotmánybíró az aláírásban akadályozott dr. Pokol Béla alkotmánybíró helyett

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

● ● ●

The Case of the Unsuccessful Electoral Candidate and the Facebook Post

Case Law

Country

Hungary

Country Location

Latitud: 47.198137592375716

Longitud: 19.319928512752984

Country Location (vinculado Case Law): Hungary

Decision Date: 18 may 2022

Case Status: Cerrado

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional

Keywords

Political Expression

Judicial Body: Constitutional Court

Court Name: Hungarian Constitutional Court

Case Number: 3237/2022. (V. 18.) AB

Case Summary: The Hungarian Constitutional Court held that although an unsuccessful electoral candidate ceases to be a public figure after an election, the debates about the candidate in the context of his public position as a candidate still require higher tolerance than can be expected of private citizens. After insulting comments were posted on Facebook about an unsuccessful candidate, the candidate filed a complaint arguing that the comments constituted criminal offences of breach of honor and defamation. The lower courts found that the candidate was no longer a public figure and so statements made about him did not constitute protected public speech. The Court stated that the public nature of a candidates conduct during a campaign does not end merely because they were not elected and so debate in the context of the campaign after the election is still governed by the principle that there is a higher duty of tolerance required from public figures who express their opinion in public affairs debates.

Case Significance: Expands Expression

The Constitutional Court protected the right to form an opinion on public affairs debates by finding that – even if the individual is no longer a public figure – debate about an unelected candidate’s campaign must not be judged according to the general standards of freedom of expression, but according to the criteria of a duty of higher tolerance required from public figures who express their opinion in public debates.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 18 oct 2024

Documentos primarios

Judgment (Hungarian).pdf
Hungarian
Descargar Ver

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Seleccionar párrafo de destino3

The Case of the Unsuccessful Electoral Candidate and the Facebook Post

Documentos primarios

Notificaciones