THE SUPREME COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY
as court of review
Pfv. E. 21. 020/2004/2. no.
The Supreme Court of
the Republic of Hungary, in the case of the self-represented plaintiff Dr
György Ádám against the defendant Loránt Hegedűs, Jr represented by the
barrister Dr Géza Gulyás, in a lawsuit of breach of personal rights, started at
the Pest County Central District Court under the number 20. P. 85.346/2003.,
completed with the 52. Pf. 29.063/2003/4. binding verdict passed by the
Budapest City Court, in the matter of the request of review submitted by the
plaintiff under number 13, brought the following
r u l i n g:
The Supreme Court rejects the request of
review.
There is no appeal against this ruling.
J u s t i f i c a t i o n:
The original Court,
having approved the plaintiff's lawsuit, established that the defendant's
article ”Christian Hungarian State” published in the third issue of the paper
Ébresztő in 2001 by the defendant, especially the passage of the article
calling for discrimination breached the plaintiff's personal rights, especially
the ban on making unfair discrimination against the plaintiff. The Court of
Appeals, which acted in the matter of defendant's appeal overturned the
original verdict and rejected the plaintiff's complaint, establishing that the
plaintiff cannot demand that a breach of his personal rights determined in
sections 75 to 83 of the Civil Code be established on the basis of paragraph
(1) of section 85 of the Civil Code and the Supreme Court's ruling PK 13, or
the application of section 84 of the Civil Code for lack of specific breach of
his personal rights.
The plaintiff
submitted a request of review against the binding verdict, requesting that the
binding verdict be abolished and that the original verdict is upheld. In his
request of review he referred to a breach of law, claiming that section 85 of
the Civil Code, and the PK 13 ruling of the Supreme Court do not exclude the
possibility of filing a lawsuit, and that the defendant's statement on the
exclusion of Jewry affected him directly and personally.
He claimed that the
request of review is necessary beyond the illegality affecting the merits of
the case, because the Supreme Court has not yet taken a theoretical decision in
the issue of how paragraph (1) of section 85 of the Civil Code is to be
interpreted in terms of the assertion of rights, in a manner published in the
official compilation of the Supreme Court's rulings.
Under paragraph (2)
of section 270 of the Pp amended on by the 105th of 2001 Act
effective as of 1st January 2002, a request of review against a
binding verdict may only be submitted if the ruling to be reviewed is illegal,
and affects the evaluation of the merits of the case, and the ruling is in
conflict with the Supreme Court's legal unity ruling, or if its review is
necessary for the unity or further development of the legal practice no. Pfv.
E. 21. 020/2004/2., as a theoretical legal question arises with regard to the
ruling, and the Supreme Court has not yet taken a decision – in a manner published
in the official compilation of the Supreme Court's rulings – on the legal
question, and if the ruling decides a legal question of such theoretical
significance, to which a theoretical decision of a different content had been
published in the official compilation of the Supreme Court's rulings. Under paragraph (2) of section 272
of the Pp. the request of review must mark the facts, which prove that the
conditions set down in section 270 have been met, with the note that the
request of review cannot be altered.
In keeping with the
above the request of review must include a precise and clear note of all the
facts, which show why the requester holds the binding ruling to be in conflict
with the law, and how and why it affected the evaluation of the merits of the
case, furthermore, on which passage of paragraph (2) of section 270 of the Pp.
he intends to base the request of review.
Under paragraph (1)
of section 273 of the Pp. it must be investigated before a review is ordered,
whether the request is in keeping with the conditions set down in section 270.
On the basis of the
contents of the request of review the illegality of the binding verdict cannot
be established. The Court arrived at the conclusion that plaintiff's being
personally affected by the defendant's actions could not be established on the
basis of the correct interpretation of the stipulations of sections 75-85 of
the Civil Code, and a correct interpretation of sentencing precedents, thus
plaintiff did not suffer such a direct breach of his rights, which could
justify his assertion of his personal rights under section 84 of the Civil
Code. The binding verdict furthermore conforms to the contents of the
2002/2/740 theoretical ruling of the Supreme Court, according to which personal
rights may only be asserted if the activity established as criminal can be
brought into connection with a specific person. The same was established by the
Supreme Court is its Pfv. IV. 20.299/2004/2. verdict, in which it declares that
if the press statement was so generalised that it excludes the possibility of
the direct recognition of any members of the denoted community, belonging to a
community in itself cannot form the basis of assertion of personal rights. The
binding verdict thus rejected the lawsuit without breach of legislation, and,
in keeping with the above, it is not in conflict with the Supreme Court's
theoretical decisions.
Therefore the
Supreme Court rejected the request of review on the basis of paragraph (1) of
section 273 of the Pp.
Under paragraph (5)
of section 273 of the Pp. there may be no appeal against this ruling.
25th May,
2004. Budapest
Dr
Mátyás Mészáros (by his own hands)
Judge