AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 29096/95
by Sándorné NÉMETH
against Hungary
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 2 July 1998, the following members being present:
MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President
N. BRATZA
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 18 February 1992
by Sándorné NÉMETH against Hungary and registered on 7 November 1995
under file No. 29096/95;
Having regard to:
- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of
the Commission;
- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on
24 October 1996 and the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 20 December 1996;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, born in 1931, is a Hungarian national and resident
in Bokod, Hungary. She is a pensioner.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be
summarised as follows.
In March 1982 the applicant, managing director of a local savings
bank (Bokodi Takarékszövetkezet), was dismissed. Moreover, criminal
proceedings on charges of misappropriation were initiated against her.
In November 1982 the Tatabánya District Court (Tatabányai Városi
Bíróság) discontinued the criminal proceedings and issued a reprimand
against the applicant. In April 1983 the Esztergom Regional Court
(Esztergomi Megyei Bíróság), upon appeal by the Tatabánya Public
Prosecutor's Office (Tatabányai Városi Ügyészség), convicted her of
misappropriation and sentenced her to eight months' imprisonment on
probation.
Following her dismissal, on 1 July 1982 the applicant brought an
action before the Esztergom Labour Court (Esztergomi Munkaügyi Bíróság)
against her former employer who had ordered her to reimburse some bonus
payments and to pay compensation. On 19 November 1985, following appeal
proceedings, the Labour Court dismissed the applicant's action.
In December 1987 the applicant brought a further action before
the Tatabánya Labour Court (Tatabányai Munkaügyi Bíróság) against her
former employer claiming some outstanding fees and wages as well as
compensation for non-pecuniary damages. On 24 January 1990 the Supreme
Court (Legfelsobb Bíróság), finding that there was bias on the part of
the Tatabánya Labour Court, appointed the Gyor Labour Court (Gyori
Munkaügyi Bíróság) to proceed with the case.
On 6 March 1990 the Gyor Labour Court dismissed the applicant's
action as a whole. On 30 May and 9 October 1990, respectively, the
Gyor-Sopron County Regional Court (Gyor-Sopron Megyei Bíróság)
dismissed her appeals concerning the outstanding fees and wages.
Moreover, on 28 November 1990 the Regional Court ordered, for reasons
of competence, the remainder of the applicant's claims to be
transferred to the Tatabánya District Court (Tatabányai Városi
Bíróság). Parts of these claims were subsequently referred back to the
Tatabánya Labour Court and were dismissed on 3 July 1992, as confirmed
by the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court (Komárom-Esztergom
Megyei Bíróság) on 28 October 1992. Her petition for review by the
Supreme Court, brought in this respect, was to no avail.
Meanwhile, on 23 September 1991 the Tatabánya District Court
ordered the applicant to specify and substantiate the remainder of her
claims concerning non-pecuniary damages. Subsequently, on
10 November 1993 the District Court transferred these claims to the
Tatabánya Labour Court, as confirmed by the Komárom-Esztergom County
Regional Court on 22 February 1994.
On 16 September 1994 the Labour Court discontinued the
proceedings on the ground that the claims constituted res iudicata. On
16 November 1994 the Regional Court quashed this decision, finding that
the applicant's claims as to the non-pecuniary damages had in fact
never been adjudicated on the merits. On 20 January 1995 the Supreme
Court appointed the Gyor Labour Court to conclude the proceedings.
On 7 September 1995 the Gyor Labour Court held a hearing in the
case, which was adjourned to 17 October 1995.
On 28 November 1995 the Labour Court held a further hearing in
the case and, on the same date, dismissed the applicant's action. The
Labour Court found no causal link between any non-pecuniary damage
which the applicant might have suffered and the conduct of her former
employer.
On 29 December 1995 the applicant appealed against this decision.
On 4 June 1996 the Gyor-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court
dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On 6 July 1996 the applicant brought a petition for review before
the Supreme Court. On 17 July 1996 the Supreme Court returned the
applicant's petition for supplementation, requiring her to provide for
legal representation. On 18 September 1996 the Supreme Court again
returned her petition on account of the absence of a legal
representative and on 7 October 1996 it granted her legal aid.
On 19 November 1996 the applicant's legal aid lawyer notified the
Supreme Court that he saw no prospect of success in pursuing the
applicant's petition for review and would not, therefore, lodge a
formal petition with the Supreme Court. He also informed the applicant
thereof. On 27 November 1996 the applicant's petition for review was
eventually withdrawn.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that
the above court proceedings were unfair and that the courts were not
impartial.
2. She further complains that the civil court proceedings lasted
unreasonably long.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 18 February 1992 and registered
on 7 November 1995.
On 4 September 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the
applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings to the
respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of
Procedure.
The Government's written observations were submitted on
24 October 1996.
On 20 December 1996 the applicant submitted observations in reply
to the respondent Government's observations.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the
Convention that the above civil court proceedings were unfair and that
the courts were not impartial.
Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, in so far as relevant,
provides as follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public
hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial
tribunal established by law. ..."
The Commission observes at the outset that the applicant's
complaints about the alleged unfairness of the court proceedings prior
to 5 November 1992, the date of the Convention's entry into force in
respect of Hungary, fall outside the competence ratione temporis of the
Commission.
As regards the alleged unfairness of ensuing court proceedings,
the Commission observes that, in conformity with Article 26 (Art. 26)
of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic
remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised
rules of international law. In this respect the Commission notes that
on 19 November 1996 the applicant's legal aid lawyer notified the
Supreme Court that he saw no prospect of success in pursuing the
applicant's petition for review and would not, therefore, lodge a
formal petition with the Supreme Court. On 27 November 1996 the
applicant's petition for review was withdrawn.
However, even assuming that, in these circumstances, the failure
to pursue a petition for review by the Supreme Court cannot be held
against the applicant and thus domestic remedies can be taken to have
been exhausted, the Commission finds that the applicant's complaint is
unsubstantiated. There is no indication that the courts lacked
impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The applicant complains that the above civil court proceedings
lasted unreasonably long.
The Government admit that, subsequent to 5 November 1992, the
Tatabánya District Court did not take action in the case until
10 November 1993. Although this may be explained to some extent by
certain administrative lapses, the Government maintain that it was
essentially the applicant who failed, in this period of the
proceedings, to specify her claims in such a way as to enable the
District Court to establish or relinquish its jurisdiction in the case.
Moreover, as regards the ensuing proceedings, the Government is of the
opinion that no undue delay had occurred until 4 June 1996, when the
applicant's appeal was finally dismissed. The applicant contests these
views.
The Commission notes that the proceedings commenced in 1987 and
considers that they ended on 4 June 1996, when the Regional Court
finally dismissed the applicant's appeal. In this respect the
Commission observes that the applicant's petition for review by the
Supreme Court was eventually withdrawn on 27 November 1996.
Accordingly, the proceedings lasted a total of some nine years.
The Commission recalls that the period to be considered begins
only on 5 November 1992, when Hungary's recognition of the right of
individual petition took effect (cf. Eur. Court HR, Foti and others v.
Italy judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53).
In assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after this
date, account must be taken of the then state of proceedings.
Accordingly, the period to be considered is about three years and seven
months.
The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria
established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question
of "reasonable time", and having regard to all the information in its
possession, that an examination of the merits of the complaint is
required.
For these reasons, the Commission,
by a majority,
DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits of the case,
the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings.
unanimously,
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy