CASE OF BAKA v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Baka v. Hungary (no. 20261/12) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2015-06-17 00:00:00)
Application no.: 20261/12
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2014-05-27 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2014:0527JUD002026112
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;10;10-1;10-2;35;35-3;41
Judges: András Baka;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano
Represented by: CECH A.
Issue: Section 74/A(2) of the Organisation and Administration of the Courts Act (Act LXVI of 1997) ; Section 11(2) of the Transitional Provisions of the Fundamental Law of Hungary ; Organisation and Administration of the Courts Bill (no. T/4743)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 64, ECHR 2007 I;Apay v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3964/05, 11 December 2007;Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93;Boyle and Rice v. the United Kingdom, 27 April 1988, § 52, Series A no. 131;Dzhidzheva-Trendafilova v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 12628/09, §§ 42-50, 9 October 2012;Efendiyeva v. Azerbaijan, no. 31556/03, § 59, 25 October 2007;Erkan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 29840/03, 24 March 2005;G. v. Finland, no. 33173/05, § 34, 27 January 2009;Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18;Hans-Adam von Liechtenstein v. Germany [GC], no. 42527/98, § 91, ECHR 2001-VIII;Harabin v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 62584/00, 9 July 2002;Harabin v. Slovakia, no. 58688/11, 20 November 2012;Juricic v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 53-57, 26 July 2011;Kayasu v. Turkey, nos. 64119/00 and 76292/01, §§ 77-79, 13 November 2008;Kleyn and Others v. the Netherlands [GC], nos. 39343/98, 39651/98, 43147/98 and 46664/99, § 193, ECHR 2003-VI;Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 79, 26 February 2009;Lombardi Vallauri v. Italy, no. 39128/05, §§ 45-56, 20 October 2009;Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, § 99, ECHR 2006 XIV;N.K.M. v. Hungary, no. 66529/11, 14 May 2013;Nazsiz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 22412/05, 26 May 2009;Nedelcho Popov v. Bulgaria, no. 61360/00, § 32, 22 November 2007;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, §§ 87-91, 9 January 2013;Olujic v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, 5 February 2009;Pellegrin v. France [GC], no. 28541/95, § 66, ECHR 1999 VIII;Petrova and Chornobryvets v. Ukraine, nos. 6360/04 and 16820/04, § 15, 15 May 2008;Pitkevich v. Russia (dec.), no. 47936/99, 8 February 2001;Poyraz v. Turkey, no. 15966/06, §§ 55-57, 7 December 2010;Sacilor-Lormines v. France, no. 65411/01, ECHR 2006 XIII;Saygılı and Seyman v. Turkey, no. 51041/99, §§ 24-25, 27 June 2006;Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 78, ECHR 2002-IV;Tosti v. Italy (dec.), no. 27791/06, 12 May 2009;Vilho Eskelinen and Others v. Finland [GC], no. 63235/00, ECHR 2007-II;Volkov v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 21722/11, 18 October 2011;Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 42-43, ECHR 1999 VII
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione materiae);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Just satisfaction reserved
Separate opinion: TRUE