CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 octobre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 17 October 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 66107/16 László GEMELA against Hungary lodged on 4 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the rejection of the applicant’s rebuttal against the presumption of service of notices in civil proceedings which were initiated against him for the repayment of life annuity. The plaintiff erroneously indicated the applicant’s address on the claim which resulted in the unsuccessful service of the claim and all subsequent court documents. The first and second instance courts applied the principle of presumption of service and – without the applicant’s participation in the proceedings – rendered judgments in favour of the plaintiff. The applicant was informed about the civil proceedings on 27 January 2016 by another respondent in the case and submitted a rebuttal of the presumption of service on the same day. Both the first and the second instance court rejected the rebuttal finding that he had submitted the rebuttal outside of the six-month statutory time-limit. The applicant contested the reasoning of the courts to no avail, claiming that he had submitted the rebuttal in good time, since in cases concerning the presumption of the service of a claim, the applicable law afforded a 15-day time-limit for the submission of a rebuttal from the date when the applicant became aware of the issue.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of “equality of arms” respected (see Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no. 17502/07, §§ 117-127, 23 May 2016)?