## Facts

- Hungary transitioned from a single-party communist regime (1949–1989), during which police and armed forces were closely tied to the ruling party, to a democratic constitutional system in 1989–1990.
- A constitutional amendment effective January 1, 1994 barred members of the armed forces, police, and specified security services from being members of political parties and from engaging in political activities.
- With parliamentary elections approaching, the Head of the National Police issued a circular instructing police officers to refrain from political activity.
- László Rekvényi, a police officer and Secretary-General of the Police Independent Trade Union, was directly affected by the constitutional ban and the police circular.
- A constitutional complaint brought by the trade union was rejected by Hungary’s Constitutional Court, which upheld the restrictions as serving the depoliticisation and neutrality of state coercive forces.
- Rekvényi alleged violations of freedom of expression (Article 10) and freedom of assembly and association (Article 11), alone and together with the non-discrimination guarantee (Article 14).

## Issues

1. Whether the ban on political party membership and political activity for police officers interfered with Article 10 rights, and if so, whether it was prescribed by law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society.
2. Whether the same measures interfered with Article 11 rights, and if so, whether they were justified under Article 11(2), including the clause permitting lawful restrictions for police and armed forces.
3. Whether restricting police and armed forces, but not the general public, constituted unjustified discrimination contrary to Article 14 taken with Articles 10 and 11.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 10.
- The Grand Chamber found no violation of Article 11.
- The Grand Chamber found no separate violation of Article 14 taken with Articles 10 and 11.
- The Court accepted that the measures interfered with Articles 10 and 11 but held the interference was lawful, pursued legitimate aims (including national security, public safety, and prevention of disorder), and was proportionate.
- The Court gave significant weight to Hungary’s recent history of politicised police forces under the prior regime and granted the state a wide margin of appreciation in securing police neutrality and public confidence.

## Legal Principles

- Interferences with expression and association may be justified if they are prescribed by law, pursue legitimate aims, and are necessary in a democratic society.
- Article 11(2) expressly permits lawful restrictions on the exercise of association rights by members of the armed forces, police, and the administration of the state; such groups may be subject to stricter limits than ordinary citizens.
- In assessing necessity and proportionality, the Court may accord a wide margin of appreciation where national authorities are better placed to assess local conditions, particularly in a recent transition from authoritarian rule.
- Differential treatment under Article 14 is permissible where the affected group is not in a relevantly comparable position and where the difference has an objective and reasonable justification, such as the special role of police as the state’s coercive force.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Hungary’s constitutional ban on police officers’ political party membership and political activity, concluding that the restrictions were lawful, pursued legitimate public interests in a politically neutral police, and were proportionate in light of Hungary’s democratic transition; the resulting differential treatment of police and armed forces was justified and non-discriminatory under the Convention.


Rekvényi v. Hungary, 30 Eur. H.R. Rep. 519 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 1999)