CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 30856/15 Piroska Mária SZIGETINÉ VASANITS and Endre Zoltán SZIGETI against Hungary lodged on 16 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns litigation about a land registry dispute establishing a right for the applicants. In 2008, in a final and binding court judgment it was held that, because the envisaged transaction had not materialised, the land registry entry could be removed if the applicants’ deposit was paid back. The deposit has not been paid back ever since. Nevertheless, in a new procedure the Kúria held that the disputed entry could be removed although the original condition (the reimbursement of the deposit) was not met (service: 16 December 2014). The applicants, relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 17 of the Convention, complain that the Kúria ’s decision rendered nugatory a final and binding court judgment in their favour and allowed that judgment to remain inoperative to their detriment. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Turczanik v. Poland , no. 38064/97, § 48, ECHR 2005 ‑ VI)?