FUHL, KORMOS, HRIVNÁK and PAPUCEK v. HUNGARY



AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 29025/95

by Imrich FUHL, Alexander KORMOS,

Michal HRIVNÁK and Gregor PAPUCEK

against Hungary

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

7 March 1996, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

D. SVÁBY

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 14 September 1995

by Imrich FUHL, Alexander KORMOS, Michal HRIVNÁK and Gregor PAPUCEK

against Hungary and registered on 31 October 1995 under file

No. 29025/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants are members of the Slovak minority in Hungary.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be

summarised as follows.

The particular circumstances of the case

The applicants were appointed electors in the election of the

national self-government of the Slovak minority in Hungary. The

election was held on 25 March 1995 in Budapest.

On 28 March 1995 six electors, including three of the applicants,

challenged the election before the National Electoral Committee. They

complained that the members of the national self-government of the

Slovak minority had not been elected by secret ballot as required by

Section 34 of the Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities.

In particular, they referred to the fact that the president of

the meeting informed the electors that they may, because of lack of

time, fill in the ballot papers on the spot without using the electoral

booths prepared for that purpose. Most of the electors filled in the

ballot papers in their seats and discussed them among themselves. The

plaintiffs alleged that the unlawful character of the election could

be proved, inter alia, by sound recordings, witnesses and a recording

made by the Regional TV in Szeged.

The National Electoral Committee transmitted the complaint to the

Supreme Court (Legfelsöbb Bíróság) without notifying the plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court contacted one of the applicants by phone in order to

eliminate certain shortcomings in the complaint. As the applicant

failed to appear, the Supreme Court rejected the complaint on

30 March 1995.

The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to

substantiate the evidence which they proposed to be examined and to

submit the names and addresses of the witnesses as required by Section

51 para. 1 of Act No. LXIV/90 (see "The relevant domestic law" below).

The complaint was therefore rejected without examination of its merits.

The relevant domestic law

The procedure of election of the national self-governments of the

national minorities in Hungary is governed by the Decree of the

Minister of Interior No. 25/1994./XI.25/ BM. Pursuant to Section 21

para. 3 of the Decree disputes about an election shall be settled in

conformity with the relevant provisions of Act No. LXIV/90 on Election

of Local Government Representatives and Mayors.

Pursuant to Section 51 para. 1 of the aforesaid Act a court shall

decide on such disputes within three days after the complaint has been

submitted to it. Complaints about unlawfulness of an election shall

be rejected without examination of their merits unless the proposed

evidence is substantiated in them. *

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that the election of the national self-

government of the Slovak minority was not secret and therefore did not

comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. In their

view, the supreme elected organ of the Slovak minority plays the role

of a "legislature" within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1

as regards that minority.

The applicants further complain that the National Electoral

Committee transmitted their complaint to the Supreme Court without

notifying them, and that the Supreme Court rejected the complaint

within one day after it had been submitted to it. The applicants

consider that the Supreme Court prevented them from presenting their

case in that it had not informed them duly of the proceedings.

Finally, the applicants allege that by the above facts they were

discriminated against.

THE LAW

The applicants allege a violation of their rights under Article

3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) and, in substance, under Articles 6 and 14

(Art. 6, 14) of the Convention.

The Commission is not required to decide whether the facts

submitted by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of

these provisions for the following reasons.

In the present case the Supreme Court found that the applicants

had failed to substantiate their complaint as required by Section 51

para. 1 of Act No. LXIV/90. For this reason the Supreme Court rejected

the complaint without examination of its merits.

The Commission considers that as the applicants did not lodge

their complaint in accordance with the formal requirements laid down

in Hungarian law, they have not complied with the requirement as to the

exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of

the Convention (cf. No. 9022/80, Dec. 13.7.83, D.R. 33, pp. 21, 39).

The Commission finds no special circumstances which might have absolved

the applicants, according to the generally recognised rules of

international law, from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies

available to them.

In particular, the Supreme Court gave the applicants the

opportunity to remedy the shortcomings in the complaint by contacting

one of them. This produced no result.

It follows that the application has to be rejected pursuant to

Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (S. TRECHSEL)