AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 31973/96
by Ráfael ÚRI
against Hungary
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 16 October 1996, the following members being present:
Mrs. J. LIDDY, President
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
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 15 April 1996 by
Ráfael ÚRI against Hungary and registered on 19 June 1996 under file
No. 31973/96;
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 applicant, born in 1950, is a Hungarian national. He resides
in Szilvásvárad, Hungary. He is a dispatcher.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In February 1988 the applicant's wife brought a divorce action
against him before the Eger District Court (Egri Városi Bíróság).
In March 1989 the Eger District Court, upon charges raised by the
applicant's wife, convicted him of failure adequately to supervise and
care for his children (kiskorúak veszélyeztetése) and sentenced him to
ten months' imprisonment. His appeal was to no avail. In December 1989
the Heves County Regional Court (Heves Megyei Bíróság) admitted the
applicant's request for re-trial. In October 1990 the District Court,
as confirmed by the Regional Court in March 1991, acquitted the
applicant.
On 29 June 1994 the District Court pronounced the divorce. The
District Court awarded the custody over two of the parties' children
to the plaintiff, whereas the custody over the third child was awarded
to the applicant. The District Court ordered the applicant to pay child
maintenance to the plaintiff. It arranged for the access to the
children in respect of both parties, divided the right to use the
parties' municipal flat between them and arranged for the separation
of their marital property. In the reasoning of its decision, the
District Court relied on evidence given by numerous witnesses and on
expert psychology evidence.
On 8 May 1995, following appeals, the Heves County Regional Court
upheld in essence the first instance decision, but granted the right
to use the flat in question solely to the plaintiff, ordering her to
pay compensation therefor to the applicant.
On 28 November 1995 the Supreme Court (Legfelsobb Bíróság)
rejected ex officio the applicant's petition for review, due to formal
shortcomings. The Supreme Court found that the applicant, despite due
notification, had failed to supplement his petition, as required by the
Supreme Court. It appears that this decision was served upon the
applicant on 3 January 1996.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 that the above
proceedings were unfair. Moreover, he submits that the civil court
proceedings were unreasonably lengthy.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) that
the above proceedings were unfair.
Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), as far as relevant, reads as
follows:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of
any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ...
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."
a. In respect of the applicant's complaint relating to the criminal
proceedings, the Commission observes that it relates to events prior
to 5 November 1992, the date on which Hungary ratified the Convention
and, therefore, falls outside the competence ratione temporis of the
Commission.
This part of the application must be rejected under Article 27
para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
b. As regards the alleged unfairness of the civil court proceedings,
the Commission considers 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
the applicant failed properly to pursue a petition for review before
the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Commission finds that he has not
exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under Hungarian law.
It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible
under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
2. The applicant further complains that the civil court proceedings
before the Eger District Court lasted unreasonably long.
The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the
file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is
therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the
Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent
Government.
For these reasons, the Commission,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint
about the length of the divorce proceedings;
and, unanimously,
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO J. LIDDY
Secretary President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy