4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Tata. 5.  At the request of his former employer, on 7 November 2002 the Tata District Court issued a payment order in the amount of approximately 42,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) against the applicant, a lawyer. Following his objection to the order, the case continued as civil litigation. 6.  On 17 December 2002 it was transferred to the Komárom District Court, as the judges of the geographically competent Tata District Court felt biased on account of the applicant’s legal practice being attached to their court. 7.  The Komárom District Court found for the plaintiff on 19 April 2005. The applicant appealed. 8.  In the proceedings before the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court, a panel of three judges, including judges Dr D. and Dr K., withdrew themselves from the case on 4 July 2005. According to their reasoning:
“In view of the fact that the respondent acts as a lawyer in the county, [and] we are in a work relationship, we find it justified for the sake of the impartial adjudication of the legal dispute that another county court proceeds in the case.”
The case was transferred to another panel of the same court. 9.  On 11 October 2005 the applicant challenged this second panel for bias, and subsequently extended his request to the whole court. He observed that the panel president, Dr V., had already declared himself biased in two other cases against him due to their daily work relationship. In one of these proceedings, Dr D. had declared herself biased as well. 10.  On 26 January 2006 the Győr Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias. It pointed out that the judges of the panel had declared themselves impartial, along with two other judges of the court. Moreover, it argued that:
“... Bias may, however, only be based on such facts [and] circumstances from which it follows objectively [and] logically that an impartial judgment is not ensured. The reason adduced by the respondent against the declarations of the five judges stating their impartiality is not suitable to establish bias.” 11.  The applicant subsequently lodged another complaint for bias against the presiding judge, Dr V. Despite the antecedents, Dr V. again maintained that he was impartial. Therefore, the Regional Court found that there was no obstacle to deliver judgment, but nevertheless ordered the transfer of the complaint to the appeal court. However, it was ultimately dealt with by another panel of the Regional Court (see paragraph 13 below). 12.  On 14 March 2006 a three-member panel of the Regional Court, with Dr V. acting as presiding judge, upheld the first-instance judgment. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 May 2006. 13.  On 21 April 2006 another panel of the Regional Court, presided by Dr D. and including Dr K., dismissed the applicant’s second motion for bias filed against Dr V. It argued that
“If the reason for disqualification according to section 13(1) e) of the Code of Civil Procedure is reported by a party and the judge does not consider himself partial in the case, then what needs to be ascertained is whether the actual existence of the reasons [and] facts reported to prove bias indeed justify the disqualification of the judge. ... [I]t is not of legal relevance that the judge previously, in a different type of case, agreed to his/her disqualification. As evidenced by the dispositions of the act, a judge is to be considered as biased if the objective adjudication of the given case may not be expected from him/her for some reason. The fact that the respondent already lodged motions of bias against the court or against certain judges of the court in several previous cases does not necessarily entail that the judges concerned become biased towards the party. In connection with the present case the respondent did not adduce any concrete ground or reason that the impartial adjudication of the present case could not be expected from the panel president. Considering moreover that the respondent did not lodge a motion for bias against the two [other] members of the panel, the Regional Court rejected the motion for disqualification (section 18 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure).”