Resolution ResDH(2001)156
concerning the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
of 5 October 2000 (final on 5 January 2001)
in the case of APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége, Iványi, Róth and Szerdahelyi against Hungary
(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 17 December 2001
at the 775th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocol No. 11 (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége, Iványi, Róth & Szerdahelyi case delivered on 5 October 2000 and transmitted to the Committee of Ministers once it had become final under Articles 44 and 46 of the Convention;
Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 32367/96) against Hungary, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 April 1996 under former Article 25 of the Convention by an unregistered association - APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége (Alliance of Tax Authority Persecutees) - and three Hungarian nationals, Mr Péter Iványi, Mr Miklós Róth and Mr Szabolcs Szerdahelyi;
Recalling that the Court, seized of the case under Article 5, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 11, declared admissible the complaint relating the unfairness of certain civil proceedings taken by the applicant association relating to its registration and choice of name;
Whereas in its judgment of 5 October 2000 the Court unanimously:
- held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, notably on account of the fact that the applicants had not been notified of the intervention of the Public Prosecutor’s Office before the Regional Court nor of the submissions made before the Supreme Court by the Attorney General’s Office;
- dismissed the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having invited the Hungarian authorities to inform it of the measures taken in consequence of the judgment of 5 October 2000, having regard to Hungary’s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas the Government of Hungary gave the Committee of Ministers, during the examination of the case, information about the measures taken preventing new violations of the same kind as that found in the present judgment; this information appears in the appendix to this resolution,
Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Hungary, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case.
Appendix to Resolution ResDH(2001)156
Information provided by the Government of Hungary
during the examination of the APEH Üldözötteinek Szövetsége, Iványi, Róth and Szerdahelyi case
by the Committee of Ministers
In view of their obligation to abide by the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights), the Hungarian authorities have taken the following measures.
In order to draw the attention of the public and the authorities to the requirements of the Convention highlighted in this judgment, the latter has been rapidly translated into Hungarian and published in the official gazette “Decisions of the Court” (2000/12. edition) and in the “Fundamentum” Human Rights periodical (2000/4. edition).
The judgment and the decision on the admissibility have also been made available in Hungarian on the official Internet site of the Ministry of Justice (http://www.im.hu/magyar/emberi-jogok/32367-96-2.htm).
Furthermore, the Hungarian authorities have invited the Office of the National Council of Justice of Hungary to include the judgment in the curriculum for the training of judges.
In the light of the direct effect accorded to the European Convention of Human Rights and the judgments of the Court in Hungarian law, the Government considers that these measures prevent the risk of new violations of the Convention similar to that found in this case.
Moreover, the government notes that the proceedings at the origin of this case do not prevent the applicants from requesting anew the registration of their association, in fair proceedings.
Consequently, the government considers that Hungary has, in this case, fulfilled its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy