Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CCPR - Hungary

Complete list of decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Articles Outcome
I.S. v. Hungary 389/1989 09 November 1990   Inadmissible
Párkányi v. Hungary 410/1990 22 March 1991   Admissible
Párkányi v. Hungary 410/1990 27 July 1992 10, 14(1, 3e) Violation
T.P. v. Hungary 496/1992 30 March 1993   Inadmissible
Kulomin v. Hungary 521/1992 16 March 1994   Admissible
E. and A.K. v. Hungary 520/1992 07 April 1994   Inadmissible
Kulomin v. Hungary 521/1992 22 March 1996 9(3), 10, 14 Violation
Somers v. Hungary 566/1993 23 July 1996 26 No Violation
Kalaba v. Hungary 735/1997 07 November 1997   Inadmissible
Borisenko v. Hungary 852/1999 14 October 2002 9(1),(2),(3),14(3)(d) Violation
Paladjian v. Hungary 1106/2002 31 March 2004   Inadmissible

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".