AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 23364/03
by Tibor GERGELY
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 September 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Tibor Gergely, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Bordács, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. First proceedings
In 1991 the applicant brought an action in the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a first-instance court, seeking the annulment of a contract and the ownership of a real-estate. The court held hearings on 13 September 1993 and 16 February 1994 and 5 December 2000.
On 8 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that he had failed to prove his claims.
On 11 December 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
On 7 October 2003 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the applicant’s petition for review, without an examination on the merits.
2. Second proceedings
In the context of the above dispute, the applicant requested that investigations be opened against unknown third persons for alleged forgery of documents. On 6 April 2005 the Budapest Investigation Office discontinued the investigation.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. Moreover, concerning the fairness and the outcome of the cases, the applicant relies on Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
1. The applicant complains about the length of the first proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... 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 § 2 (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 fairness of the first proceedings under Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention and about the outcome of the case under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court observes that the applicant failed to pursue properly a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
It follows that, in respect of this part of the application, domestic remedies have not been exhausted as required by Article 35 § 1. This complaint must consequently be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
3. Lastly, the applicant complains that his request to have investigations opened against third persons was unsuccessful.
The Court notes that the Convention does not guarantee any right to have investigations opened against third parties. This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae within the provisions of the Convention under 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 length of the civil proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
GERGELY v. HUNGARY DECISION
GERGELY v. HUNGARY DECISION