Communicated on 4 January 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 22945/15
Z.T.
against Hungary
lodged on 28 April 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The application concerns disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant, a notary public, allegedly without clear rules in the national legislation governing such proceedings. The first-instance decision of the disciplinary court ordering her to pay a fine was delivered on 18 July 2014. It was upheld on 17 November 2014 by the Kúria as second-instance disciplinary court. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the bodies conducting the procedure against her fell short of the requirement of “tribunal established by law” contained in Article 6 1.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 87-94, ECHR 2013)?
2. Was the court deciding in the applicant’s case established by law (see DMD GROUP, a.s., v. Slovakia, no. 19334/03, § 59, 5 October 2010), in particular, did clear rules regarding the disciplinary proceedings against a notary public exist in the national legislation?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy