CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33134/21 Szilárd VILLÁS against Hungary lodged on 18 June 2021 communicated on 7 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the termination of the applicant’s service of 20 years as court bailiff following a legislative reform of the judicial enforcement system where the applicant did not accept an unfavourable change in his service status. The applicant submitted a constitutional complaint, in which he raised that the institutional reform – recommended to the Government by Judge X, then the President of the National Judicial Office – was contrary to the Fundamental Law of Hungary. On 23 February 2021 the Constitutional Court, sitting as a panel of five judges with Judge X (by then, member of the Constitutional Court) as the rapporteur of the case and the president of the panel, found the applicant’s complaint inadmissible due to the absence of victim status. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been deprived of his right to a hearing by an impartial tribunal because his constitutional complaint had been decided by a panel of judges that included Judge X, former President of the National Judicial Office and supporter of the impugned reform.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the Constitutional Court impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention ( Švarc and Kavnik v. Slovenia , no. 75617/01, §§ 35-44, 8   February 2007; HIT d.d. Nova Gorica v. Slovenia , no. 50996/08, §§ 34-42, 5   June 2014)? Did the applicant have legitimate grounds for fearing that Judge X might have been influenced by her prior participation in the legislative process, which had led to the reorganisation of the judicial enforcement system ( McGonnell v. the United Kingdom , no. 28488/95, §§   46-58, ECHR 2000-II; Chim and Przywieczerski v. Poland , nos. 36661/07 and 38433/07, §§ 160-178, 12 April 2018)?