CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 février 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 }   Communicated on 16 February 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 67123/14 Marianna BERÉNYI against Hungary lodged on 30 September 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the issue of judicial impartiality. The applicant and her previous husband were the sole shareholders of two companies, one primarily run by the applicant and one primarily run by the husband. During their marriage they were close friends with several judges of the Kecskemét High Court. After their separation, the husband started a relationship with one of the judges of the Kecskemét District Court. The applicant and her previous husband lodged several lawsuits against each other and/or against the companies run by the other party. In these lawsuits either the Kecskemét High Court or the Kecskemét District Court had competence. In the majority of these proceedings all judges of the courts declared personal bias and excluded themselves from the lawsuits. However, according to the applicant, one of the judges who had declared herself biased in an earlier lawsuit, then declared herself impartial in the impugned lawsuit and, as the single judge of the case, ruled against the company run by the applicant. The judgment in the case was given by the Kecskemét High Court on 6   November 2013. On appeal, the Szeged Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on 18 March 2014 (service of the judgment: 31 March 2014). Challenging the judgment before the Kúria was excluded by law. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Panyik v. Hungary , no. 12748/06, §§   29-34, 12 July 2011)?