SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 42467/04
by Péter KOCSIS and Péter Mihály KOCSIS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
16 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 October 2004,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Péter Kocsis and Mr Péter Mihály Kocsis, are Hungarian nationals who live in Budapest. The second applicant was born in 1978. They were represented before the Court by Mr L. Illés, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were 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 the context of a dispute concerning family allowance, on 7 May 1997 the applicants brought an action against the Health Insurance Board of Budapest and Pest County. On 2 March 1998 the Buda Surroundings District Court found for them. In the appeal proceedings, a medical expert presented his opinion on 1 August 2001 finding that the second applicant's disability reached 67% which fact entitled the applicants to the allowance in question. On 10 October 2001 the Pest County Regional Court upheld the District Court's decision. On 13 November 2002 the Supreme Court rejected, for formal reasons, the applicants' petition for review directed essentially against the reasoning of the final decision. Their objection was rejected on 15 April 2003.
On 16 April 2003 the Board discontinued the payments, observing that the second applicant had already attained 18 years of age. On 24 June 2003 the second-instance administrative body dismissed the applicants' appeal. On 28 July 2003 the applicants challenged these decisions in court and, simultaneously, submitted an official liability claim. On 21 October 2003 the Regional Court finally dismissed the action in its part concerning the review of the administrative decisions. At the same time, it transferred the official liability claim to the competent bench.
On 22 September 2006 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants' official liability claim. On 22 February 2007 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. On 2 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed their petition for review.
COMPLAINT
The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the protraction of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicants complained that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government contested that argument.
The Court observes that the proceedings which started on 7 May 1997 ended on 15 April 2003. Moreover, the case in which the applicants challenged the administrative decision of 24 June 2003 was terminated on 21 October 2003. However, the application was introduced only on 14 October 2004, i.e. more than six months later than either of these dates. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the applicants' official liability claim, the Court observes that it was introduced on 28 July 2003. The proceedings ended on 2 October 2007; thus, they lasted approximately four years and two months for three levels of jurisdiction. In the absence of any particular period of inactivity imputable to the authorities, the Court is satisfied that these proceedings did not exceed a reasonable time. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy