SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 23578/03
by Sándor CSESZKA
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 June 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sándor Cseszka, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Komárom. He is represented before the Court by Mr T. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Komárom. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2000 the applicant brought an action in trespass before the Komárom District Court alleging that his neighbour’s very noisy activities with a heavy lorry at all hours interfered with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his property. In April 2001 the court found for him, ordering the neighbour to refrain from manoeuvring his lorry in his yard between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. On appeal, on 27 June 2001 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on the merits, but dismissed the applicant’s additional claim to have his neighbour prohibited from parking his lorry in his own garden. The applicant requested the execution of this judgment on 31 August 2001.
On 15 November 2001 an enforcement order was issued. On 27 February 2002 the District Court called on the applicant to state whether or not the neighbour had complied with the judgment. In reply, the applicant alleged that the neighbour had breached the injunction on several occasions.
On 11 April 2002 the District Court imposed a fine on the neighbour in order to secure his observance of the injunction.
On 14 May 2002 the neighbour appealed. On 8 October 2002 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 11 April 2002 and remitted the case to the District Court.
In the resumed proceedings, on 9 January 2003 the District Court held a hearing. It heard evidence from the applicant, the neighbour and five witnesses. Relying on the evidence thus obtained, on 14 March 2003 the court found against the applicant, holding that his neighbour had observed the injunction.
The applicant did not appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the authorities’ failure to enforce the injunctions prohibiting his neighbour from perpetuating the noise nuisance, which in his view amounted to an interference with the right to respect for his home and private life. He relied on Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE LAW
Invoking Articles 2 and 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained of the alleged non-enforcement of the injunction prohibiting his neighbour from perpetuating a noise nuisance. The Government submitted that the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The applicant contested this view.
Article 35 § 1 provides as relevant:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law...”
The Court notes that court proceedings were taken against the applicant’s neighbour in order to secure his compliance with the injunction. In these proceedings, on 14 March 2003 the District Court found that he had indeed observed the injunction.
The Court notes that the applicant did not appeal against this decision to the Regional Court. Consequently, he cannot be said to have exhausted the domestic remedies available to him. It follows that the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy