SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 15029/05
by LONDON STÚDIÓ NYELVOKTATÓ KFT
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 April 2005,
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 company, London Stúdió Nyelvoktató Kft, is a Hungarian limited liability company, with its seat in Budajenő. It was represented before the Court by Mr T. Weinzierl, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The respondent 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.
The applicant company runs a language school. On 16 May 1996 Ms I.P. and six other students complained to the Competition Board that the applicant’s advertisements had been misleading. On 17 October 1996 the Board found for them. The applicant sought judicial review. After two hearings, on 11 February 1998 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the Board’s decision. This judgment was in turn upheld by the Supreme Court on 5 March 2001.
Meanwhile, on 14 April 1997 Ms I.P. filed an action in compensation against the applicant company. At the latter’s request, on 10 July 1997 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the above case against the Competition Board’s decision. On 10 May 2001 the applicant requested the resumption of the litigation. A hearing took place on 27 September 2001. On 3 January 2002 the Regional Court partly found for the plaintiff. The applicant and the plaintiff appealed respectively on 26 February and 17 August 2002. On 8 September 2004 the Supreme Court amended the first-instance judgment. This decision was served on 25 October 2004.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the length of the compensation proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement 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 period to be taken into consideration began on 14 April 1997 and ended on 25 October 2004. It thus lasted more than seven and a half years for two levels of jurisdiction. However, in the Court’s view, the period of three years and ten months which elapsed between 10 July 1997 and 10 May 2001, during which time the proceedings were suspended at the applicant’s request, cannot be imputed to the State. The Court notes in this connection that, during this time, two court instances dealt with the applicant’s case against the Competition Board and that those proceedings did not disclose any appearance of undue delay. Consequently, that period must be deducted from the total length of the proceedings.
The relevant length is therefore three years and eight months for two levels of jurisdiction. In the absence of any significant period of inactivity attributable to the authorities, the Court considers that the overall length did not exceed “a reasonable time” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
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.
2. The applicant also complained of the length of the administrative litigation. The Court notes that the final domestic decision in this case was given by the Supreme Court on 5 March 2001. However, the application was only introduced on 11 April 2005, i.e. more than six months after this date. Consequently, this complaint 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