Imrene Radics v Regional Court of Pecs (Hungary)

Where an appellant requires an interpreter, the court must ensure that the hearing can be understood by both the appellant and the judge. If there is a real possibility that notice of an oral renewal hearing did not reach an unrepresented appellant, fairness requires the hearing to be adjourned so that proper notice and participation can be secured.

The appellant’s oral renewal of permission to appeal was listed for hearing. She was expected to appear in person and required an interpreter. Shortly before the hearing, difficulties with the interpreter were identified. The appellant did not attend, and enquiries suggested that notice of the hearing may not have been sent to her personal email address after her former solicitors came off the record.

The issue was whether the hearing could fairly proceed in those circumstances.

1. Adjournment. The oral renewal hearing was adjourned to a new date to be fixed and notified.
2. If the appellant had attended, the interpreter difficulties would inevitably have required an adjournment so that she could make oral representations understood by the judge and understand the court’s response.
3. The appellant’s non-attendance did not justify proceeding in her absence. The material before the court indicated that the notice of the hearing, issued on 3 November 2023, might not have reached her personal email address. The hearing had not been fixed when the earlier order was sent to that address.
4. In those circumstances, the court could not be satisfied that the appellant had received effective notice or had a fair opportunity to participate. The case was therefore to be relisted and notified.

The matter concerned an oral renewal of the appellant’s application for permission to appeal. The Administrative Court adjourned the renewal hearing because of interpreter difficulties and uncertainty over whether the appellant had received notice.