PANYIK v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT 3 is to be considered as biased if the objective adjudication of the given case may not be expected from him/her for some reason. The fact that the respondent already lodged motions of bias against the court or against certain judges of the court in several previous cases does not necessarily entail that the judges concerned become biased towards the party. In connection with the present case the respondent did not adduce any concrete ground or reason that the impartial adjudication of the present case could not be expected from the panel president. Considering moreover that the respondent did not lodge a motion for bias against the two [other] members of the panel, the Regional Court rejected the motion for disqualification (section 18 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure).” II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW 14. The rules governing disqualification of judges can be found in Act no. III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure, which, in its relevant part, provides as follows: Section 13 “(1) Cannot participate as judge in the administration of the case and is disqualified thereof: a) the party, the person authorised or obliged jointly with the party, those who fully or in part claim the subject of the action for themselves, or whose rights or obligations might be affected by the result of the action, ... e) who cannot be expected to ascertain the case objectively due to other reasons” 15. Chapter XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure contains the dispositions relative to petition for review before the Supreme Court. According to section 271(2), petition for review is precluded in a property law case if the disputed value does not exceed HUF 1,000,000. THE LAW I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 16. The applicant complained that the tribunal which heard his civil case was not impartial. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an ... impartial tribunal...”