AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 22049/93
by I.R. and I.R.
against Hungary
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 1 December 1993, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President
H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 15 March 1993 by
Imre and Imréné Révész against Hungary and registered on 11 June 1993
under file No. 22049/93;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are Hungarian nationals born in 1940 and 1942
respectively.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be
summarised as follows.
The applicants complain about two separate sets of civil
proceedings. The first took place in 1980-83, the other one, instituted
by them in 1987, is still pending.
The applicants are co-owners of real property in Monor with six
further co-owners. It has been registered under three separate numbers
in the land register. These separate numbers, theoretically, correspond
to three separate parts of the land; one of them is in the applicants`
possession including a house thereon. The rest of the property,
comprising the two other separate parts and a further house on one of
these parts, is in the possession of the six co-owners.
In 1980 the applicants instituted civil litigation, concerning
the ownership of a certain piece of land, against their neighbours,
other than their co-owners. In 1983 on appeal a final decision was
given by the Pest County Court (Pest Megyei Bíróság).
In 1987, apparently at the beginning of the year, the applicants
instituted further civil proceedings against the co-owners. They
claimed the partition of the property. They also claimed that 419m2 of
land used by the co-owners should be transferred to them or,
alternatively, its value should be paid to them. The co-owners agreed
with their first claim but opposed the second one.
On 23 November 1987 the Monor Court (Monori Bíróság) gave
judgment in the case. It divided the land and rejected the applicants`
second claim.
On 9 July 1988 the Pest County Court quashed the first instance
judgment and ordered the Monor Court to re-hear the case. The second
instance court instructed the first instance court to suspend the case
and let the applicants institute land registration proceedings in order
to clarify the matter.
On 21 October 1988 the Monor Court re-heard the case and
suspended the proceedings in order to let the applicants obtain a final
land registration decision.
The applicants instituted land registration proceedings.
On 7 August 1992 the Monor Land Registration Office (Monori
Földhivatal) rejected the applicants` petition. The decision was served
on the applicants on 10 October 1992.
On 4 November 1992 the Monor Municipal Court (Monori Városi
Bíróság - the former Monor Court) held a hearing. The applicants
informed the court that there was still no final land registration
decision. The court suspended the proceedings again.
On 5 November 1992 the applicants lodged an appeal against the
decision of the Monor Land Registration Office with the Pest County
Land Registration Office (Pest Megyei Földhivatal). There is still no
second instance land registration decision. A second instance land
registration decision, if it rejects the petition, could be challenged
before the municipal and county courts by the applicants.
The applicants also refer to proceedings instituted by them
against their co-owners on 1 February 1985. They do not complain of
these proceedings but state that as a consequence of this litigation
the relationship between them and the co-owners became strained. The
applicants were threatened several times by unspecified persons.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain that they are deprived of their property
and claim that most of the public authorities and officials were biased
and involved in a conspiracy against them. As far as the current civil
litigation is concerned they also complain about the length of the
proceedings. They finally complain about threats without specifying the
offenders and claim that their right to security has been jeopardised.
They do not invoke any specific Convention Articles.
THE LAW
1. With regard to the applicants` complaint concerning the
proceedings in 1980-83 the Commission recalls that according to the
generally recognised principles of international law the Convention
governs only those facts which arose after it came into force in
respect of the party concerned. In the above proceedings the final
decision was given in 1983, i.e. before 5 November 1992, which is the
date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Hungary.
Accordingly, as the proceedings fall within the period prior to
the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Hungary, this part
of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions
of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
2. As to the current proceedings the applicants allege a deprivation
of their property as a result of an alleged conspiracy against them by
biased public authorities and officials dealing with their case.
The Commission notes that the civil proceedings are still pending
before the first instance court, i.e. no final decision has been given
in the case. The complaint concerning deprivation of property is thus
premature.
It follows that there is, at the present stage, no appearance of
a violation of the Convention. The complaint is therefore manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).
3. The applicants also complain about threats and claim that their
security of person is jeopardised. In this respect the Commission finds
no issue under the Convention. It follows that this complaint is also
manifestly ill-founded.
4. The applicants finally complain about the length of civil
proceedings which were instituted by them in 1987 and which are still
pending before the first instance court. The Commission considers that
it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the question of
admissibility of this complaint without the observations of both
parties.
The Commission therefore considers that this part of the
application must be adjourned.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants` complaint
concerning the length of civil proceedings.
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy