CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 mars 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No.   29025/95                       by Imrich FUHL, Alexander KORMOS,                       Michal HRIVNÁK and Gregor PAPUCEK                       against Hungary        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 March 1996, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  E. BUSUTTIL                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  F. MARTINEZ            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  D. SVÁBY                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  P. LORENZEN                  K. HERNDL              Mr.    H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 14 September 1995 by Imrich FUHL, Alexander KORMOS, Michal HRIVNÁK and Gregor PAPUCEK against Hungary and registered on 31 October 1995 under file No. 29025/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are members of the Slovak minority in Hungary. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.        The particular circumstances of the case        The applicants were appointed electors in the election of the national self-government of the Slovak minority in Hungary.   The election was held on 25 March 1995 in Budapest.        On 28 March 1995 six electors, including three of the applicants, challenged the election before the National Electoral Committee.   They complained that the members of the national self-government of the Slovak minority had not been elected by secret ballot as required by Section 34 of the Act on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities.        In particular, they referred to the fact that the president of the meeting informed the electors that they may, because of lack of time, fill in the ballot papers on the spot without using the electoral booths prepared for that purpose.   Most of the electors filled in the ballot papers in their seats and discussed them among themselves.   The plaintiffs alleged that the unlawful character of the election could be proved, inter alia, by sound recordings, witnesses and a recording made by the Regional TV in Szeged.        The National Electoral Committee transmitted the complaint to the Supreme Court (Legfelsöbb Bíróság) without notifying the plaintiffs. The Supreme Court contacted one of the applicants by phone in order to eliminate certain shortcomings in the complaint.   As the applicant failed to appear, the Supreme Court rejected the complaint on 30 March 1995.        The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate the evidence which they proposed to be examined and to submit the names and addresses of the witnesses as required by Section 51 para. 1 of Act No. LXIV/90 (see "The relevant domestic law" below). The complaint was therefore rejected without examination of its merits.        The relevant domestic law        The procedure of election of the national self-governments of the national minorities in Hungary is governed by the Decree of the Minister of Interior No. 25/1994./XI.25/ BM.   Pursuant to Section 21 para. 3 of the Decree disputes about an election shall be settled in conformity with the relevant provisions of Act No. LXIV/90 on Election of Local Government Representatives and Mayors.        Pursuant to Section 51 para. 1 of the aforesaid Act a court shall decide on such disputes within three days after the complaint has been submitted to it.   Complaints about unlawfulness of an election shall be rejected without examination of their merits unless the proposed evidence is substantiated in them. *   COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain that the election of the national self- government of the Slovak minority was not secret and therefore did not comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.   In their view, the supreme elected organ of the Slovak minority plays the role of a "legislature" within the meaning of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 as regards that minority.        The applicants further complain that the National Electoral Committee transmitted their complaint to the Supreme Court without notifying them, and that the Supreme Court rejected the complaint within one day after it had been submitted to it.   The applicants consider that the Supreme Court prevented them from presenting their case in that it had not informed them duly of the proceedings.        Finally, the applicants allege that by the above facts they were discriminated against.   THE LAW        The applicants allege a violation of their rights under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-3) and, in substance, under Articles 6 and 14 (Art. 6, 14) of the Convention.        The Commission is not required to decide whether the facts submitted by the applicants disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions for the following reasons.        In the present case the Supreme Court found that the applicants had failed to substantiate their complaint as required by Section 51 para. 1 of Act No. LXIV/90.   For this reason the Supreme Court rejected the complaint without examination of its merits.        The Commission considers that as the applicants did not lodge their complaint in accordance with the formal requirements laid down in Hungarian law, they have not complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention (cf. No. 9022/80, Dec. 13.7.83, D.R. 33, pp. 21, 39). The Commission finds no special circumstances which might have absolved the applicants, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies available to them.        In particular, the Supreme Court gave the applicants the opportunity to remedy the shortcomings in the complaint by contacting one of them.   This produced no result.        It follows that the application has to be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Commission             President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                          (S. TRECHSEL)