AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 4411/02
by Mr László CSEPINSZKY and Mrs Lászlóné CSEPINSZKY
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 November 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2001,
Having regard to the partial decision adopted on 28 September 2004,
Having regard to its decision, under Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicants, Mr László Csepinszky, and Mrs Lászlóné Csepinszky, are Hungarian nationals, who were born in 1925 and 1934 respectively and live in Budapest. The respondent Government are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Deputy State-Secretary, Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 March 1995 the applicants requested that a payment order be issued against the community of the inhabitants of the building in which they lived. On 20 April 1995 the respondent objected to the order.
Consequently, on 21 January 1996 the applicants filed an action for a settlement of accounts.
The Buda Central District Court held hearings on 24 January, 18 June and 12 December 1996, 16 May and 17 September 1997. After another hearing on 23 April 1998, on 15 June 1998 the applicants requested a three-month interruption of the proceedings. Further hearings took place on 7 January and 19 September 1999. On that date, none of the parties appeared so the proceedings were stayed. On 26 October 1999 the applicants requested that the proceedings be resumed. They made final submissions to the court on 8 February 2000.
On 25 February 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicants’ claims.
On 3 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed their appeal.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
The applicants’ complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 21 January 1996 and ended on 3 November 2000 with the Regional Court’s decision. They therefore lasted approximately four years and nine months, before two levels of jurisdiction.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
In the absence of any substantial period of inactivity imputable to the authorities, the Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicants’ conduct and that of the competent authorities), that the overall length of the proceedings did not exceed a “reasonable time” (De Simone v. Italy (dec.), no. 40403/98).
It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention and the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. Dollé J.-P.
CSEPINSZKY v. HUNGARY DECISION
CSEPINSZKY v. HUNGARY DECISION