CASE OF MIRACLE EUROPE KFT v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Tribunal established by law)
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
5. The applicant is a limited liability company registered under Hungarian law, with its seat in Budapest. 6. In a dispute concerning a construction project envisaged in public procurement, in January 2012 the applicant company brought an action in damages against a university. 7. The President of the territorially competent Budapest High Court requested the National Judicial Office (“NJO”) to reassign the case to another court of the same jurisdictional level. In the request the President provided particulars about the case to be reassigned and indicated the data and the circumstances which prevented the adjudication, within a reasonable time, of this case, deemed to be of high importance, by relying on, in particular, the case-load of judges hearing civil cases, significantly exceeding the national average. 8. The President of the NJO examined the case-load statistics of the Budapest High Court, including the volume of highly important and priority cases and the workload of judges hearing civil cases. She found that, in view of the short statutory time-limits, the adjudication of the case within a reasonable time could only be ensured by reassigning the case to another court. 9. By requesting information from the President of the Zalaegerszeg High Court, the President of the NJO also examined the case-load and the operational conditions, including staff and facilities, of the Civil Division of the Zalaegerszeg High Court. On the basis of this information, the President of the NJO was satisfied that the reassignment of the case to the Zalaegerszeg High Court would not impose a disproportionate burden on that court. 10. For the sake of judicial economy as appreciated above, on 16 February 2012 the President of the NJO case assigned the case to the Zalaegerszeg High Court (decision no. 29/2012. (II.16.) OBHE), acting within the powers conferred upon her by the law. 11. The Zalaegerszeg High Court heard the case and dismissed the claim on 5 June 2012. That decision was confirmed by the Pécs Court of Appeal on 18 September 2012, a ruling served on 12 October 2012. The latter’s territorial competence to hear the appeal was a consequence of the case having been assigned to the Zalaegerszeg High Court. 12. Meanwhile, on 17 September 2012 the National Judicial Council issued decision no. 58/2012 on “the guidelines to be observed in respect of case reassignment”. 13. On 7 September 2013 the Kúria upheld the decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal in review proceedings. The courts held in essence that the applicant company’s perception according to which the university had unlawfully backed out of the investment contract (namely, the construction of a dormitory) was nothing more than a misconception of the law and a tendentious interpretation of the circumstances, and that the facts of the case did not reveal any compensation liability on the respondent’s side, for want of unlawfulness. 14. Meanwhile, on 13 December 2012 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint. It counted – and complied with – the statutory sixty-day time-limit to do so from the service of the final decision in the case, i.e. from 12 October 2012. It claimed firstly that the domestic courts had reached their decisions in an arbitrary manner and, secondly, that it was deprived of a “tribunal established by law”, since by decision no. 29/2012. (II.16.) OBHE the President of the NJO had reassigned the case from the originally competent court to the Zalaegerszeg High Court. 15. The constitutional complaint was declared inadmissible on 10 June 2013 (decision no. 3123/2013. (VI. 24.) AB). The Constitutional Court held that the case as a whole did not reveal any arbitrariness or unfairness as such. As regards the specific complaint about the reassignment, it held that this issue was severable from the main procedure. It was of the view that the sixty-day statutory time-limit had run, in that respect, from the very reassignment decision of 16 February 2012 – rather than from 12 October 2012 as construed by the applicant – and for that reason this part of the motion was time-barred. 16. On 2 December 2013 the Constitutional Court adopted decision no. 36/2013. (XII.5.) AB in the matter of reassignment, in pursuit of constitutional complaints originating in cases other than that of the applicant. It held that the regulations which entitled the President of the NJO to reassign cases among courts (notably, sections 62 and 63 of Act no. CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of Courts, as in force between 1 January and 16 July 2012, see paragraph 20 below) had been unconstitutional and in violation of Article 6 of the Convention. According to the Constitutional Court, the right for one’s “natural” (lawful) judge flows from the right to have one’s case examined by a court “established by law” and requires that a case be heard by a judge belonging to the court with competence and territorial jurisdiction and designated by the pre-established objective rules of case assignment of that court. In the Constitutional Court’s view, the impugned regulations, which had conferred responsibility for the reassignment of cases, at least in the material period, entirely on the President of the NJO, had been in breach of those principles. Moreover, it had violated the requirement of the appearance of impartiality. The Constitutional Court also held that the lack of a remedy against the decision of the President of the NJO had violated the Fundamental Law, as well as Article 13 of the Convention. The Constitutional Court did not prescribe any particular legal consequence of this decision for the ongoing procedures concerned by re-assignment. Consequently, the Constitutional Court’s decision did not invalidate any reassignment decisions taken previously (see paragraphs 19 and 24 below).