Hungary / Supreme Court / 6/2025. JEH – Jpe.III.60.033/2024/8
-
Hungary / Supreme Court / 6/2025. JEH – Jpe.III.60.033/2024/8
Key facts of the case:
The uniformity complaint arose from civil and labour-law proceedings concerning the impartiality of judges who had previously participated in decisions on recusal or designation of the trial court and later sat in the same case as members of a second-instance panel. Two Kúria judgments published in the Collection of Judicial Decisions (Bírósági Határozatok Gyűjteménye) had given divergent answers to the question whether a judge who had previously taken part in a decision on recusal (exclusion) or designation of a court is automatically disqualified from sitting in the same case when the merits come before the second-instance court. In one line of case-law, such prior participation in a decision on the exclusion of a judge was treated as an absolute ground for exclusion of the same judge from later hearing the appeal, on the basis of the old Code of Civil Procedure. In another line, the Kúria held that participation in a decision on the designation of the competent court did not trigger exclusion from the second-instance panel. To resolve this inconsistency, the President of the Civil Law Department of the Kúria submitted a uniformity-complaint request. The fundamental-rights dimension arises because the right to an impartial tribunal is guaranteed both by the Fundamental Law (Article XXVIII) and by Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6(1) of the ECHR. The Kúria therefore had to clarify whether, and under what conditions, such earlier procedural involvement of judges creates an appearance of bias incompatible with the right to a fair hearing.
Key legal question of the case:
Whether, in light of the constitutional right to a fair trial and Article 47 of the Charter, a judge who has participated in a previous decision on exclusion or designation in the same case must always be considered objectively biased (and thus excluded from the second-instance panel), or whether exclusion is required only where the party also appeals against that earlier decision or specific circumstances create a real appearance of bias.
Outcome of the case:
The Kúria issued a uniform interpretation with two key points:
- A judge is excluded from sitting on the second-instance panel if the party, in its appeal, also challenges the decision rejecting a motion for recusal and that judge took part in that rejection.
- A judge is not automatically excluded from the second-instance panel solely because she or he took part in a prior decision on designation of the competent court; designation does not, in itself, predetermine the merits and does not create an appearance of bias.
In its reasoning, the Kúria explicitly linked the national concepts of exclusion to the constitutional and international standards on impartiality, and referred to Article 47 of the Charter and Article 6 ECHR as articulating the requirement that courts must not only be impartial but must appear impartial. The Court emphasised that the old Code of Civil Procedure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in a way that avoids any reasonable doubt about impartiality while also ensuring that courts can function effectively.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter
19. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter: the Charter) also declares the parties’ right to a fair procedure. Article 47 provides that everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing, within a reasonable time, by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law.
-
Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)
19. Az Európai Unió Alapjogi Chartája (a továbbiakban: Charta) is deklarálja a felek tisztességes eljáráshoz való jogát. A 47. cikk kimondja, hogy mindenkinek joga van ahhoz, hogy a törvény által korábban létrehozott független és pártatlan bíróság észszerű időn belül tisztességes és nyilvános tárgyalást folytasson.