Communicated on 4 January 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 22945/15 Z.T . against Hungary lodged on 28 April 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The application concerns disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant, a notary public, allegedly without clear rules in the national legislation governing such proceedings. The first-instance decision of the disciplinary court ordering her to pay a fine was delivered on 18 July 20 14. It was upheld on 17 November 2014 by the Kúria as second-instance disciplinary court. The ap plicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the bodies conducting the procedure against her fell short of the requirement of “tribunal established by law” contained in Article 6 1.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine , no. 21722/11 , § 87-94, ECHR 2013) ?

2. Was the court deciding in the applicant ’ s case established by law (see DMD GROUP, a.s ., v. Slovakia , no. 19334/03, § 59 , 5 October 2010), in particular, did clear rules regarding the disciplinary proceedings against a notary public exist in the national legislation ?