CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 14 March 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 52640/10 Mátyás PADLÁS against Hungary lodged on 2 September 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant initiated a labour lawsuit requesting the court to declare invalid the termination of his employment without a notice. After the first- and second-instance courts finding the applicant’s claim well-based, the Supreme Court reassessed the evidence, reversed the judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim without holding an oral hearing, although it had been expressly requested to do so. The applicant claims that the Supreme Court’s failure to hold an oral hearing violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court reassessed the evidence in the case without holding a hearing and found against the applicant which decision was not susceptible to any further appeal?