CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 août 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 221 August-September 2018 Somorjai v. Hungary - 60934/13 Judgment 28.8.2018 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Lack of reasons for Supreme Court decision not to refer to CJEU for preliminary ruling, absent explicit request to this effect: inadmissible Facts – Upon the applicant’s request, in March 2010 a labour court instructed the pension authority to recalculate his pension in accordance with EU rules. The pension authority stated that it would only pay arrears for the last five years preceding the date of the labour court’s decision, when the mistake was discovered, as provided by the 1997 Pensions Act. This was contested by the applicant who claimed arrears for the whole period following Hungary’s EU accession (May 2004) and that the current law constituted a “limitation of rights” prohibited by the relevant EU Regulation. The labour court and the Kúria (the Supreme Court) upheld the decision of the pension authority restricting the payment period. The Kúria did not address the applicant’s argument that Article   234 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (now Article   267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)) was violated by the labour court’s judgment. Law – Article 6 § 1 (a)     Complaint alleging a misinterpretation of EU law – The review of the soundness of the Kúria ’s interpretation of EU law fell outside the Court’s jurisdiction. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ). (b)     Complaint of a lack of reasoning in connection with the need for a reference for a preliminary ruling – The Kúria ’s jurisdiction had been limited to an examination of the issues raised by the petition for review. The applicant had not requested, in his petition for review, that the case be referred to theCourt of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling; nor had he provided any reasons as to why, in his view, the labour court’s judgment had violated Article   234 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. Under those circumstances, the Kúria ’s lack of reasoning in connection with those aspects seemed to be in line with the domestic procedural rules. In addition, as per the CJEU relevant case-law, even if the initiative of a party was not necessary for a domestic court against whose decisions there was no judicial remedy under national law to be obliged to bring a question concerning the interpretation or the validity of EU law before the CJEU, it was solely for that court to determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment. In the present case the Kúria had been of the view that the relevant provisions of the 1997 Pensions Act and those of the relevant EU Regulation did not conflict, and thus had not considered a preliminary ruling on a question of EU law necessary to give judgment. In such circumstances the Court did not discern any appearance of arbitrariness in the fact that the Kúria had not referred a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling or in its manner of giving reasons for the judgment without elaborating on questions related to a potential reference for a preliminary ruling. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). The Court unanimously found a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the length of the proceedings. Article 41: EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Ullens de Schooten and Rezabek v.   Belgium , 3989/07, 20   September 2011, Information Note 144 ; and Baydar v.   the Netherlands , 55385/14, 24   April 2018, Information Note   217 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes