SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 12748/06
by Tibor PANYIK
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
9 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tibor Panyik, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Tata.
A. The circumstances of the case
(1) At the request of his former employer, on 7 November 2002 the Tata District Court issued a payment order against the applicant, a lawyer. Following his objection to the order, the case continued as civil litigation (no. 3.P.20.112/2005). In December 2002 it was transferred to the Komárom District Court, because the judges of the geographically competent Tata District Court felt biased on account of the applicant’s legal practice attached to their court.
The Komárom District Court found for the plaintiff on 19 April 2005. The applicant appealed.
In the proceedings before the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional Court, the panel of Dr D. and Dr K. declared themselves biased, because they knew the applicant from his legal practice. The case was transferred to another panel.
The applicant also challenged this panel for bias. He observed that its President, Dr V., had already declared himself biased in one of his earlier cases (no. 9.P.21.516/2003). In those proceedings, Dr D. had declared herself biased as well.
A three-member panel of the Regional Court, presided by Dr V., upheld the first-instance judgment on 14 March 2006. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 May 2006. On 21 April 2006 an appellate panel of the Regional Court, presided by Dr D. and including Dr K., dismissed the applicant’s motion for bias filed against Dr V.
(2) On 25 June 2003 the applicant was fined 15,000 Hungarian forints by the Tata Police Department for committing a minor traffic offence. The Veszprém District Court finally upheld the decision on 13 July 2004.
(3) In 1991 the applicant initiated criminal proceedings on charges of slander against certain individuals. This case ended before the Supreme Court on 26 October 2006.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the unfairness and outcome of the proceedings and that his civil case, described at point 1 above, was not heard by an impartial tribunal. Moreover, concerning the proceedings described at points 1 and 3 above, he complains about their length.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the tribunal which heard his civil case (described at point 1 above) was not impartial. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by an ... impartial tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant also complains about the protraction and the outcome of those civil proceedings.
However, the Court observes that the case lasted some three years and five months before two levels of jurisdiction. In the absence of any particular period of inactivity imputable to the authorities, the Court is satisfied that it did not exceed the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Moreover, in so far as the applicant’s complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of these proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. While Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant’s submissions do not disclose any elements of arbitrariness and, hence, no appearance of a violation of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention has been demonstrated.
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.
3. As regards the criminal case described at point 2 above, the Court observes that the final decision was given by the Veszprém District Court on 13 July 2004. However, the application was only introduced on 20 March 2006, i.e. more than six months later. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
4. Lastly, concerning the applicant’s complaints about the outcome and length of the criminal proceedings described at point 3 above, the Court reiterates that the Convention does not guarantee any right as such to have third persons convicted and that Article 6 is inapplicable to proceedings with a view to pressing charges against such persons. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, 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
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the impartiality of the court hearing his civil case;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy