CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s36109428 { width:18.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD73EB0F { width:14.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD6BE18B4 { width:200.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 57005/09 by INDEX.HU ZRT against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, INDEX.HU Zrt, is a private joint stock company with its seat in Budapest. It was represented before the Court by Mr L. Baltay, a lawyer practising in Gyál. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant runs an internet-based news portal where it published the video footage of a demonstration. Several police officers – who had been filmed and whose images had been published without their consent –brought a civil-law action against the applicant before the Budapest Regional Court, requesting the court to establish an abuse of their images. The court found for the plaintiffs on 10 November 2008. The Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this decision on 31   March 2009. The judgment was served on the applicant on 14 May 2009. It did not lodge a petition for review with the Supreme Court. B.     Relevant domestic law Act no. 3 of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows: Section 270 § 2 “A petition for a review of the final decision by the Supreme Court may be filed, alleging a breach of the law, by any party...” Section 275 § 4 “If the [final] decision ... was in breach of the law, the Supreme Court shall fully or partially quash the unlawful decision; and if the facts of the case can properly be established on the basis of the case file, it shall give a new decision in compliance with the law, otherwise it shall instruct the first- or second-instance court in charge of the case to resume the proceedings and to adopt a new decision.” COMPLAINT Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the outcome of the proceedings. THE LAW The applicant complains that the Hungarian court decisions amounted to a violation of its rights under Article 10 of the Convention. Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law...” The Court observes that the applicant failed to lodge a petition for review with the Supreme Court against the Budapest Court of Appeal's decision of 31   March 2009. It notes that, according to section 270 § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, any party may lodge such a petition claiming a breach of the law. The Supreme Court may quash a decision, which it finds to be in breach of the law, and give a new one, or remit the case to the lower courts, in accordance with section 275 § 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court is therefore satisfied that this remedy, capable of providing adequate redress, was available to the applicant. Accordingly, the Court finds that the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to it under Hungarian law. It follows that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§   1   and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Sally Dollé   Françoise Tulkens   Registrar   President