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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy