Communicated on 20 January 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 56665/09 Károly NAGY against Hungary lodged on 19 October 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Károly Nagy , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Gödöllő .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was a pastor of the Hungarian Calvinist Church. As the result of a disciplinary procedure, he was dismissed from service as of 1 May 2006. He initiated labour - law proceedings against the C hurch for unpaid remuneration, but the Pest Labour Court discontinued the procedure. On appeal, the second-instance court upheld the decision on 27 May 2007.

Subsequently, the applicant sued the C hurch fo r damages, but the Pest Central D istrict Court rejected the claim on 2 January 2008. The court pointed out that the applicant ’ s claim was not susceptible to adjudication by S tate courts . On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision on 27 October 2008. The applicant lodged a petition for review .

On 28 May 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the final decision together with the first-instance proceedings and discontinued the case. It held that the applicant ’ s claims belonged exclusively before the ecclesiastical jurisdictions and could not be pursued before State courts (service: after 6 July 2009).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that the non-adjudication of his claims by the State courts, on account of the fact that they originated in ecclesiastical service, amounts to discriminatory denial of access to a court. He relies on Arti cles 6 and 14 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Does the dispute in question, that is, a claim for compensation for allegedly unjustified dismissal from religious service, fall within the ambit of civil rights and obligations, so as to attract the applicability of Article 6?

2. If so, was the applicant ’ s right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, respected when the State courts refused to hear the case on account of the ecclesiastical character of the service in which the dispute originated?

3. Was the applicant discriminated against, in the enjoyment of his rights allegedly falling within the ambit of Article 6, on account of the ecclesiastical character of the service in which the dispute originated, in breach of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 6 of the Convention?