Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SZALONTAY v. HUNGARY

  Inadmissible (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  SZALONTAY v. HUNGARY

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (24)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.11.2017 - 5433/17

  DOMJÁN v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 71327/13

  The Court also points out that it is ready to change its approach as to the potential effectiveness of the remedies in question should the practice of the domestic authorities indicate the contrary (see, mutatis mutandis, Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 38, 14 November 2017).
• EGMR, 17.01.2017 - 10851/13

  KIRÁLY AND DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 71327/13

  He made reference to the case of Király and Dömötör v. Hungary (no. 10851/13, § 48, 17 January 2017).
• EGMR, 19.06.2018 - 54927/15

  MENDREI v. HUNGARY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 71327/13

  The general principles surrounding the issue at hand are outlined in Mendrei v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 54927/15, §§ 23-26, 19 June 2018).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 01.10.2026 - 32317/23

  CUNAJ v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 17 The Government, referring to Szalontay v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 71327/13, 12 March 2019), argued that the application was inadmissible on account of the applicant' failure to lodge a constitutional complaint.
• EGMR, 30.04.2026 - 10102/24

  GIRUTSKIY v. HUNGARY

  The relevant domestic law has been set out in Trapitsyna and Isaeva v. Hungary (no. 5488/22, §§ 25-36, 19 September 2024) and in Szalontay v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 71327/13, § 22, 12 March 2019).

  The Court has already held that a constitutional complaint under section 26(1) and/or section 27 of Act no. CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court (hereinafter "the Constitutional Court Act") was an effective remedy generally to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in situations where the application concerned Convention rights equally protected by the Fundamental Law of Hungary (see Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, § 34, 12 March 2019).

• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 54421/21

  SZAXON v. HUNGARY

  The Court also points out that it would be ready to change its approach in respect of the potential effectiveness of the remedies in question, should the practice of the domestic authorities show, in the long run, that domestic case-law is not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention (see, Müdür Turgut and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 4860/09, § 57, 26 March 2013, Xynos, cited above, § 49; and, mutatis mutandis, Domján v. Hungary (dec.), no. 5433/17, § 38, 14 November 2017, and Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, § 39, 12 March 2019).

• EGMR, 28.10.2021 - 52374/15

  BANCSÓK v. HUNGARY

  The Court has previously found that a constitutional complaint under section 27 of the Constitutional Court Act represents an effective remedy to be used for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in situations where the application concerns Convention rights that are equally protected by the Fundamental Law of Hungary (see Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 17.06.2021 - 39734/15

  VARGA v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already examined the scope of the Constitutional Court's review in Hungary and noted that it carries out an examination under section 26(1) and section 27 of the Constitutional Court Act if the grievance has occurred as a result of the application of a piece of legislation allegedly contrary to the Fundamental Law in court proceedings (section 26(1)) or if the grievance has occurred as a result of court rulings allegedly contrary to the Fundamental Law (section 27), and under section 26(2) of the Constitutional Court Act if the grievance has occurred directly as a result of the taking effect of a legal provision, provided the absence of any other remedies (see Mendrei, cited above, and Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.) no. 71327/13, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 30.04.2019 - 70750/14

  REPCEVIRÁG SZÖVETKEZET v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already found that a constitutional complaint is normally an effective remedy to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 28.04.2026 - 21715/22

  MOLNÁR-FULMER AND PINCEHELYI v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 11 Section 27 of Act no. CLI of 2011 on the Constitutional Court provides for a right to lodge a constitutional complaint if the grievance occurred as a result of court rulings allegedly contrary to the Fundamental Law where the ruling on the merits of the case or another ruling closing the court proceedings violates the complainant's right enshrined in the Fundamental Law (see for the wording of the relevant provision Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, § 22, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 21.05.2024 - 29233/15

  NAGY AND KOVÁCS v. HUNGARY

  Rn. 28 For the Court, if the applicants' reluctance to substantiate the claim by way of an expert as instructed did not per se amount to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, their subsequent failure to pursue a constitutional complaint certainly did so (see Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 15.09.2020 - 67123/14

  BERÉNYI v. HUNGARY

  The relevant provisions of the Constitutional Court Act are set out in Szalontay v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 71327/13, § 22, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 25520/13

  GERÉB v. HUNGARY

  The Court has already held that a constitutional complaint under section 27 of the Constitutional Court Act is an effective remedy which normally needs to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in situations where the application concerns Convention rights equally protected by the Fundamental Law of Hungary (see Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, §§ 30-40, 12 March 2019).
• EGMR, 22.04.2025 - 24678/17

  DANYI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 28.09.2021 - 76527/17

  NAGYNÉ VÖLGYESI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 16.12.2020 - 39479/18

  KREMELSON INVEST KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 12.11.2019 - 73665/17

  TAKÁCS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 51716/15

  PARAIZS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 61115/15

  BALOGH v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 30856/15

  SZIGETI AND SZIGETINÉ VASANITS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 22945/15

  Z.T. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 03.09.2019 - 9293/14

  J.J. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 43873/16

  GERILLA PRESS KFT v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 22172/14

  KARSAI v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 04.06.2019 - 39448/14

  KISS v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 16.03.2021 - 28323/18

  LAURUS INVEST HUNGARY KFT AND CONTINENTAL HOLDING CORPORATION v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 01.10.2019 - 27606/17

  SCHMIED v. HUNGARY