CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 15 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 11608/15 Csaba HERBAI against Hungary lodged on 2 March 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was a human resources manager at a major bank in Hungary. The application concerns his dismissal from employment for having published a blog post about the reduction in bonus payments. In the labour proceedings initiated by the applicant for unlawful dismissal the domestic courts found that the applicant had been bound by professional secrecy and by publishing the impugned blog post had endangered the economic interest of his employer. Thus, the Kúria dismissed the applicant’s labour action on 3 September 2014. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   In particular, was the constitutional complaint an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision?   2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention ( Guja v. Moldova [GC], no. 14277/04, ECHR   2008; Heinisch v. Germany , no. 28274/08, ECHR 2011)?