CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 juin 2017

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left }   Communicated on 23 June 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 55580/13 Károly VIGH and Zsuzsanna KOVÁCS against Hungary lodged on 22 August 2013 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the registration of an electricity supplier’s statutory right to maintain 20,000V major network cables crossing the applicants’ property. The first-instance administrative decision was not served on the applicants by post; instead, it was publicly notified by display on the local authority’s billboard. By the time the applicants found out about the registration and obtained service by post, the time-limit for appealing to the higher administrative authority had already expired, unbeknownst to them. This state of affairs ultimately deprived the applicants of the possibility to seek judicial review of the registration. The applicants’ administrative appeal and application for judicial review, both concerning the service itself were dismissed, on 22 August 2012 and 15 February 2013 (service: 26 February 2013), respectively, with the finding that the relevant rules had been complied with.     QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicants’ right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to have their case of an allegedly grievous administrative measure heard by a court respected?