Search
document

Document text Analytics

ÚRI v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 31973/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3364

Document date: October 16, 1996

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

ÚRI v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 31973/96 • ECHR ID: 001-3364

Document date: October 16, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant