issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 042 (2023)
09.02.2023
Judgments and decisions of 9 February 2023
The European Court of Human Rights has today given notification in writing of 35 judgments1 and
53 decisions2:
one Chamber judgment is summarised below;
two separate press releases have been issued for Chamber judgments in the cases of C8 (Canal 8)
v. France (applications nos. 58951/18 and 1308/19) and Ugulava v. Georgia (no. 5432/15);
a separate press release has also been issued for one decision in the case of Žegarac and Others
v. Serbia (no. 54805/15 and 10 other applications);
32 Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been examined by the Court, and
The judgment summarised below is available only in English.
Katona and Závarský v. Slovakia (applications nos. 43932/19 and 43995/19)
The applicants, László Katona and Tomáš Závarský, are respectively a Hungarian and a Slovak
national. They were born in 1955 and 1979 and live in Budapest (Hungary) and Bratislava,
respectively.
The case arises out of a situation following the transfer of shares in a company – in which both
applicants are shareholders – from Mr Katona to a third individual under the agreement that
payment would be made in instalments. Mr Katona received promissory notes to that effect, one of
which he transferred to Mr Závarský. Payment was not received and the applicants sued for the
principal amount of 74,000 euros, which led to final and enforceable judgments in their favour.
Following the third party’s bankruptcy with “debt discharged” being granted by the District Court in
proceedings to which the applicants were not a party, it became legally impossible for them to
assert their claims against the debtor in the bankruptcy or any other proceedings. This was based on
an amendment to the Bankruptcy and Restructuring Code which excluded the possibility of
obtaining satisfaction before the courts for certain types of claims, including claims based on
promissory notes issued prior to a certain date.
Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on
Human Rights and Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention, the applicants
complain, in particular, of being unable to pursue the third party in legal proceedings and of a lack of
legal protection in that connection, and that that amounted to a denial of access to a court.
Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s
delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five
judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final
judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.
2
Inadmissibility and strike-out decisions are final.
