SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 665/05
by Kálmán PAJOR
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
20 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 November 2004,
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 Kálmán Pajor, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Táplánszentkereszt. 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 the context of an aborted transaction concerning the construction of a flat, on 10 February 1998 the applicant brought an action in compensation against a company. On 12 June 2002 the Pest Central District Court found for him and obliged the respondent to pay him damages.
In the meantime, on 14 December 1999 the respondent’s liquidation had been ordered, and was published in the official gazette on 13 January 2000. On that date, the statutory 40-day time-limit for creditors to announce their claims started to run.
On 14 June 2000 the applicant reported his pending claim to the liquidation trustee. On 19 June 2000 he filed a request for procedural reinstatement, arguing that he had not been able to respect the time-limit because he had not been informed of the institution of the liquidation proceedings.
On 20 June 2000 the Budapest Regional Court instructed the applicant to complete his motion, which he did not. Another unsuccessful order was issued to him on 6 October 2000. On 21 February 2001 the applicant objected to yet another order issued on 16 January 2001.
On 2 April 2001 the court rejected the applicant’s request for procedural reinstatement and recognition as a creditor. On 6 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this decision.
COMPLAINT
Without relying on any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained of the length of the proceedings. The Government submitted that the application had been introduced outside the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention which provides as relevant:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted ... and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”
The applicant contested this view in general terms.
The Court observes that the applicant’s case ended with the Supreme Court’s decision of 6 November 2003, whereas the application was introduced only on 17 November 2004, i.e. more than six months later. It follows that the application must be declared inadmissible 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy