CASE OF KÁROLY NAGY v. HUNGARY
Hearing: Károly Nagy v. Hungary (no. 56665/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2016-10-12 00:00:00)
Application no.: 56665/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2015-12-01 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2015:1201JUD005666509
Respondent state: HUN
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;35
Judges: András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens
Represented by: NAGY M.
Strasbourg case-law cited: Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, §§ 65-66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 IV;Albert and Le Compte v. Belgium, 10 February 1983, § 29, Series A no. 58;Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Portugal [GC], no. 73049/01, § 83, ECHR 2007 I;Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, § 57, Series A no. 93;Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27644/95, § 48, ECHR 2000 IV;Balakin v. Russia, no. 21788/06, § 52, 4 July 2013;Baudler v. Germany (dec.), no. 38254/04, 6 December 2011;Bellet v. France, 4 December 1995, § 36, Series A no. 333 B;Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2) [GC], no. 22251/08, § 42, ECHR 2015;Boulois v. Luxembourg [GC], no. 37575/04, §§ 90-91, ECHR 2012;Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits), 23 July 1968, Series A no. 6, pp. 33-34, § 9;Delfi AS v. Estonia [GC], no. 64569/09, § 127, ECHR 2015;Dietrich Reuter v. Germany (dec.), nos. 32741/06 and 19568/09, 17 January 2012;Fayed v. the United Kingdom, 21 September 1994, § 65, Series A no. 294 B;Gherghina v. Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219/07, 9 July 2015;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18;Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, § 110, 3 October 2014;Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 159, ECHR 2008;König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 88, Series A no. 27;Le Calvez v. France, 29 July 1998, § 56, Reports 1998 V;Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium, 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43;Markovic and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 1398/03, ECHR 2006 XIV;Masson and Van Zon v. the Netherlands, 28 September 1995, § 49, Series A no. 327-A;Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, § 74, ECHR 2009;Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, ECHR 2014 (extracts);Müller v. Germany (dec.), no. 12986/04, 6 December 2011;Rekvényi v. Hungary [GC], no. 25390/94, §§ 67-68, ECHR 1999 III;Roche v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32555/96, ECHR 2005 X;Rohlena v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 59552/08, § 51, ECHR 2015;Roland Reuter v. Germany (dec.), no. 39775/04, 6 December 2011;Sabeh El Leil v. France [GC], no. 34869/05, § 47, 29 June 2011;Sierpiński v. Poland, no. 38016/07, §§ 87 and 90, 3 November 2009;Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden, 23 September 1982, § 81, Series A no. 52;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 229-230, ECHR 2012;Stichting Mothers of Srebrenica and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65542/12, § 120, ECHR 2013 (extracts);Tinnelly & Sons Ltd and Others and McElduff and Others v. the United Kingdom, 10 July 1998, § 61, Reports 1998 IV;Vučković and Others v. Serbia [GC], no. 17153/11, §§ 69-71, 25 March 2014;Yanakiev v. Bulgaria, no. 40476/98, § 58, 10 August 2006
Conclusion: Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)
Separate opinion: TRUE