AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 22049/93
by Imre and Imréné RÉVÉSZ
against Hungary
and
Application No. 24407/94
by Imre RÉVÉSZ
against Hungary
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 28 June 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 application introduced on 8 May 1994 by
Imre RÉVÉSZ against Hungary and registered on 15 June 1994 under file
No. 24407/94;
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 facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the
parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants are Hungarian nationals born in 1940 and 1942
respectively.
The applicants are co-owners of real property in Monor with six
further co-owners. This real estate, comprising three parcels of land
numbered 1913, 1914 and 1916, constitutes the undivided joint ownership
of the above persons.
I. Proceedings regarding the termination of the joint ownership
On 1 February 1985 the applicants, represented by counsel,
instituted civil proceedings against the co-owners, claiming the
termination of the joint ownership and 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 27 January 1986 the Monor District Court (Városi Bíróság) held
a hearing on the applicants' action. The District Court, upon the
requests of both parties, suspended the proceedings.
On 19 March 1987 the Monor District Court, having continued the
proceedings upon the request of the defendants, held a further hearing.
At the hearing of 8 July 1987 the District Court granted the
applicants' request to take expert evidence as to the borderline
between the plots of land owned by the applicants and the defendants,
respectively, and appointed the surveyor Mr. F.
On 23 November 1987 the Monor District Court gave judgment in the
case. It divided the land and rejected the applicants' second claim.
The applicants filed an appeal on 11 March 1988.
On 9 July 1988 the Pest Regional Court (Megyei Bíróság) quashed
the first instance judgment and ordered the Monor Court to conduct
further proceedings. It also invited the District Court to suspend the
proceedings in order to give the applicants the opportunity to
institute land registration proceedings in order to have the allegedly
incorrect entry in the land register corrected.
On 21 October 1988 the Monor Court held a further hearing and
suspended the proceedings in order to allow for land registration
proceedings.
On 10 October 1991 the applicants, represented by counsel,
instituted the said land registration proceedings.
On 7 August 1992 the Monor Land Registration Office (Földhivatal)
rejected the applicants' petition. The decision was served on the
applicants on 10 October 1992.
On 4 November 1992 the Monor District Court held a hearing in the
partition proceedings. The applicants informed the court that there
was still no final land registration decision. The District 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 Regional
Land Registration Office (Megyei Földhivatal).
On 19 January 1993 the Pest Regional Land Registration Office
quashed the decision of 7 August 1992 and sent the case back to the
Monor Land Registration Office.
On 31 August 1993 the Monor Land Registration Office rendered a
new decision granting the applicants' requests.
On 30 May 1994 the Monor Land Registration Office informed the
Monor District Court that, in the land registration proceedings, the
applicants had meanwhile lodged a request for judicial review with the
District Court against a decision of the Pest Regional Land
Registration Office. It appears that, upon the defendants' appeal, the
decision of 31 August 1993 had been quashed and that the applicants'
claims had been rejected.
On 2 January 1995 the Monor District Court requested the
applicants to inform it about the state of the land registration
proceedings and possibly to submit the text of the final decision on
the matter.
II. Proceedings regarding the neighbours' building permit
On 25 June 1991 the Pilis Mayor's Office (Nagyközség
Polgármesteri Hivatal) granted the request of the applicants'
neighbours, a married couple, for a building permit in respect of an
adjoining building on their real estate.
On 11 September 1991 the Office of the Deputy of the Republic
(köztársasági megbízott Hivatal), acting as administrative authority
of second instance, dismissed the first applicant's appeal and
confirmed the decision of 25 June 1991.
On 22 October 1991 the first applicant instituted proceedings
before the Budakörnyeki Court for a judicial review of the
administrative decisions, requesting that the neighbours' application
for a building permit be dismissed. He submitted inter alia that the
authorities had failed to take into due account that proceedings
regarding the termination of the joint ownership of the applicants' and
the other co-owners' joint property were still pending.
On 12 May 1992 the Budakörnyeki Court, following a hearing and
in agreement with the parties, suspended the proceedings pending the
land registration proceedings.
By letter of 3 January 1994 the first applicant informed the
Court of the termination of the land registration proceedings, and,
following an inquiry by the Court, filed a copy of the decision of the
Land Registration Office on 22 March 1994.
On 16 May 1994 the Budakörnyeki Court, following further
hearings, quashed the decisions granting the building permit in
question.
On 21 June 1994 the neighbours concerned, as co-defendants,
appealed against the decision of 16 May 1994.
On 10 October 1994 the Pest Regional Court dismissed the appeal.
III. Further proceedings
As far as can be determined from the applicant's submissions, a
further dispute, which was apparently terminated in 1986, concerned a
fence which had been constructed by the first applicant on part of the
jointly owned real estate, and had to be removed.
Moreover, on 30 April 1993 the Pilis Mayor's Office rejected the
applicants' request for a building permit concerning in particular an
adjoining building and a fence. According to the decision, the
applicants had failed, despite warnings to file statements by the co-
owners that they had no objections to the planned buildings. The
decision also contained information on the remedies available. In the
absence of an appeal, the decision became final on 20 May 1993.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicants complain about the length of the proceedings
regarding the termination of the joint ownership of the real estate.
They do not invoke any provision of the Convention.
2. The first applicant's further, rather confused submissions
concern the proceedings regarding the neighbours' building permit.
3. The first applicant also pursues general complaints about his
neighbours and the various disputes with them.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
Application No. 22049/93 was introduced on 15 March and
registered on 11 June 1993.
On 1 December 1993 the Commission decided to communicate
Application No. 22049/93 to the respondent Government for observations
on the admissibility and merits of the applicants' complaint about the
length of civil proceedings. The remainder of the application was
declared inadmissible.
On 18 March 1994 the Government submitted their observations.
The applicants' observations in reply were submitted on 16 April 1994.
Application No. 24407/94 was introduced on 8 May and registered
on 15 June 1994.
On 7 December 1994 the Commission decided to join the above
applications and to invite the Government to send further observations
on the admissibility and merits.
The respondent Government submitted supplementary observations,
following an extension of the time-limit, on 23 February 1995, and
observations in reply were submitted by the applicant on 29 March 1995.
THE LAW
1. The applicants complain about the length of civil proceedings
concerning the termination of the joint ownership of real estate.
This complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention which reads, as far as relevant, as
follows:
"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations
..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable
time ..."
The Government maintain that the Commission has no competence
ratione temporis to consider the events in the present case prior to
5 November 1992, the date of entry into force of the Convention in
respect of Hungary. Moreover, according to the Government, no undue
delays occurred in the further course of the proceedings for the
termination of the joint ownership, even taking the applicants'
position at that time into account. As regards the land registration
proceedings, the Government also state that the applicants failed to
apply to the Public Prosecutor's Office to exercise its supervision as
to an alleged delay caused by the administrative authorities.
The proceedings in question were instituted by the applicants in
1985 and are still pending.
The first part of the proceedings took place prior to the
ratification of the Convention by Hungary on 5 November 1992. This
period would, if considered alone, fall outside the scope of the
Commission's considerations ratione temporis. Nevertheless, it is to
be taken into account when assessing the reasonableness of the length
of the subsequent proceedings (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Neumeister judgment
of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 37, para. 6; Ringeisen judgment
of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, pp. 41-42, para. 101; Foti and others
judgment of 10 December 1982, Series A no. 56, p. 18, para. 53; Pretto
and others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71, p. 14,
para. 30).
Since the entry into force of the Convention in respect of
Hungary, the proceedings have lasted two years and about eight months.
The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of
proceedings is to be determined with reference to the criteria laid
down in the case-law of the Convention organs and in the light of the
circumstances of the case, which in this case call for an overall
assessment (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Obermeier judgment of 28 June 1990,
Series A no. 179, p. 23, para. 72; Cesarini judgment of 12 October
1992, Series A no. 245-B, p. 26, para. 17).
The Commission notes that the proceedings for the termination of
the joint ownership of the real estate were suspended pending land
registration proceedings concerning the estate in question. In the
latter proceedings, the competent Land Registration Office, following
the applicants' successful appeal, rendered a new decision on
31 August 1993. Following the decision of the Pest Regional Land
Registration Office on the neighbours' appeal, the applicants lodged
a request for judicial review with the competent District Court. In
the proceedings for the termination of the joint ownership, the Monor
District Court inquired about the state of the land registration
proceedings with the Land Registration Office in 1994 and, on
2 January 1995, requested the applicants to submit information about
the state of the land registration proceedings and possibly to file a
final decision. It does not appear that the applicants so far complied
with this request.
The Commission finds that the Monor District Court cannot be
criticised for the continued suspension of the proceedings before it
in order to await, following an instruction to that effect by the Pest
Regional Court, the outcome of the land registration proceedings. In
this respect, the Commission observes that the Monor District Court
took measures to be kept informed about the state of the land
registration proceedings and their termination. As regards the land
registration proceedings, the Commission finds that the question
whether the applicants should have addressed themselves to the Public
Prosecutor's Office concerns the merits of the length complaint. In
any event, the Commission, leaving the question of the effectiveness
of the step suggested by the Government open, considers that the land
registration matter was dealt with by two administrative bodies and was
then brought before a court and that no considerable delays on the part
of the Hungarian authorities have been shown by the applicants.
In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the length of
the relevant part of the proceedings for the termination of the joint
ownership has not, so far, exceeded a "reasonable time" within the
meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In reaching
this conclusion, the Commission had regard to the fact that these
proceedings have been altogether pending since February 1985.
It follows that the applicants' complaint about the length of the
proceedings concerned is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
2. The first applicant's further submissions seem to relate to
proceedings to challenge the validity of a building permit granted to
his neighbours, and could be understood as a complaint about the length
of these proceedings.
The Government refer to their arguments concerning the
proceedings for the termination of the joint ownership.
The Commission finds that while the proceedings started in 1991,
the relevant period to be examined ratione temporis lasted from
5 November 1992 until 10 October 1994, i.e. about one year and eleven
months.
The Commission, on the basis of an overall assessment of the
relevant factors, considers that there is no appearance that the length
of these proceedings exceeded what can be regarded as a "reasonable
time" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the
Convention.
The first applicant's submissions regarding this set of
proceedings do not disclose any appearance of a violation of his
Convention rights.
3. The Commission has examined the remainder of the first
applicant's complaints as they have been presented by him. However,
having considered these matters as a whole, the Commission finds no
indication of a violation of any of the provisions of the Convention
or of its Protocols.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATIONS INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy