CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2018

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   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?