What you want to know in 2021, every morning.
The Constitutional Court also ruled in two cases related to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Decisions were published on Friday In one, the previous court ruling was upheld, and in the other, the court ordered a retry.
Let’s start with the first. In December 2014, HVG’s year-end double issue was published under the title “Great Christmas,” illustrating a text from a painting by Gerard von Hunthurst: The Adoration of the Shepherds – their heads replaced with images of Hungarian public figures. The newspaper was reported by someone violating his or her privacy rights in terms of arrangement and manner, but courts in both the first and second instances denied that the newspaper violated the Catholic Christian community. The petitioner then appealed to the Constitutional Court, but the commission also considered that the courts of first instance “correctly recognized that the purpose of the communication must be examined in the first place”, which was not intended to offend Christians and did not convey negative feelings towards believers. The form of expression conveyed an opinion A specific politician is not unjustified or arbitrary with regard to its content.
The topic of the other case was a protest against a planned tightening of the abortion law in 2016, in front of the Polish embassy in Budapest, where activists sacrificed participants with a paper titled “Abortion Pills” – the above motion picture was shown at the event. In the first and second instances, the court also rejected the plaintiff’s complaint in this case. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court ordered the court to repeat the proceedings on the basis of this It was already recognized in the first instance that the plaintiffs had been harmed through their religious community, but the offensive communication was accepted as a constitutionally protected expression of opinion. However, according to the Constitutional Court, in this case, the extent to which the abusive communications contributed to the discussion of public affairs or the extent to which members of the religious community had been violated should have been examined given the damage to the religious community. Religious society. In its decision, AB specifically confirmed that no position has been taken on the matter, it is up to the court to decide the case.
