## Facts

- Attila Vajnai, vice-president of a registered Hungarian left-wing political party, spoke at a lawful political demonstration in Budapest on February 21, 2003.
- During the demonstration, he wore a five-pointed red star (about 5 cm) on his jacket as a political symbol.
- Hungarian Criminal Code Article 269/B § 1 criminalized public use or display of specified “totalitarian symbols,” including the red star.
- Police ordered Vajnai to remove the star; he complied, but criminal proceedings were still brought against him.
- On March 11, 2004, a district court convicted him for publicly using a totalitarian symbol, but did not impose a punishment and placed him on one year of probation; the conviction remained on record.
- On October 20, 2005, a regional court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the restriction was justified by Hungary’s historical experience with dictatorship.
- Vajnai applied to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming the conviction unjustifiably interfered with his freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

## Issues

1. Whether convicting the applicant for wearing a red star at a lawful political demonstration interfered with freedom of expression under Article 10.
2. If so, whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim under Article 10 § 2, and was necessary in a democratic society (proportionate to a pressing social need).
3. Whether Article 17 (abuse of rights) barred the applicant from relying on Article 10 because the symbol could be linked to totalitarian ideology.

## Decision

- The court unanimously found an interference with Article 10, and that it was prescribed by law (Criminal Code Article 269/B).
- The court accepted that Hungary’s historical experience could support legitimate aims such as protecting public order and the rights of others.
- The court held the interference was not necessary in a democratic society because the blanket criminal prohibition, as applied, did not respond to a pressing social need and was disproportionate.
- The court rejected the government’s Article 17 objection, finding the applicant’s expression was not totalitarian propaganda aimed at destroying Convention rights.
- The court awarded just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage and costs.

## Legal Principles

- Political expression, including symbolic expression, receives strong protection; restrictions require convincing and compelling justification.
- When a symbol has multiple meanings, authorities must evaluate context and the message conveyed; automatic criminal liability for any public display is overbroad.
- A restriction cannot be justified by speculative risks or feared reactions of others absent evidence of a concrete, present danger (e.g., incitement to violence or restoration of dictatorship).
- Criminal convictions for expressive conduct can create a chilling effect, particularly where the law is broad and indifferent to context.
- Article 17 is applied exceptionally; it does not exclude Article 10 protection absent expression comparable to clearly totalitarian or Nazi-inspired propaganda aimed at undermining Convention rights.

## Conclusion

The court held that Hungary violated Article 10 by convicting a politician for wearing a red star at a peaceful, lawful demonstration because the blanket criminal ban ignored context and the symbol’s multiple meanings, lacked a pressing justification, and imposed a disproportionate chilling interference with political expression.


Vajnai v. Hung., App. No. 33629/06 (Eur. Ct. H.R. July 8, 2008)