LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
FARKAS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 23272/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2530
Document date: May 17, 1994
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
FARKAS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 23272/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2530
Document date: May 17, 1994
Cited paragraphs only
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 23272/94
by István FARKAS
against Hungary
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 17 May 1994, the following members being present:
MM. A. WEITZEL, President
C.L. ROZAKIS
F. ERMACORA
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
G.B. REFFI
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
E. KONSTANTINOV
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 7 April 1993 by
István FARKAS against Austria and registered on 19 January 1994 under
file No. 23272/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having examined the case file,
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Hungarian citizen born in 1942. The facts of
the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was serving in the Hungarian Army (Magyar
Néphadsereg) as a parachutist training officer. On 14 October 1986
he suffered an accident.
On 3 April 1987 the applicant lodged a petition with the army and
claimed full compensation for his loss.
On 12 August 1987 the commander of his troop informed him that
the Finance Division`s Compensation Subdivision of the Hungarian Army
(Magyar Néphadsereg Pénzügyi Szolgálat Fonökség Kártérítési Alosztály)
acting as first instance administrative authority had ordered payment
of 30,000 Hungarian Forints and refused the remainder of his claim.
However the applicant was ordered to undergo some further medical
examinations. He was found to be 100% disabled.
On 1 April 1988 the applicant was pensioned by the army.
On 12 September 1989 the Hungarian Army ordered the applicant to
appear before the Military Branch of the Medical Institute of Judicial
Experts (Igazságügyi Orvosszakéroi Intézet katonai részleg) for further
examinations.
On 22 May 1990 the above first instance administrative authority
issued a further decision by which it rejected most of the applicant`s
claims as to his full compensation. The applicant lodged an appeal.
On 9 July 1990 the Ministry of Defence (Honvédelmi Minisztérium)
refused the hierarchical appeal.
On 21 November 1990 the applicant instituted judicial proceedings
before the Pest Central District Court (Pesti Központi Kerületi
Bíróság) against the Ministry of Defence (Honvédelmi Minisztérium) and
claimed full compensation.
On 29 May 1991 the court ordered the defendant to pay to the
applicant 205,553 Hungarian Forints plus interest for non-pecuniary
damages. The defendant lodged an appeal.
On 26 November 1992 the Metropolitan Court (Fovárosi Bíróság) as
a court of appeal decreased the amount of compensation for non-
pecuniary damages to 105,553 Hungarian Forints, quashed the remainder
of the first instance judgment and instructed the first instance court
to re-try the case in this respect.
The latter proceedings are still pending before the first
instance court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains about the length of proceedings. Moreover
he claims that he has not been provided with a fair hearing as the
courts are biased as they do not appear to provide him with full
compensation. He invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings
involved in the case. Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention
provides, so far as relevant, as follows.
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a
reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal
established by law."
The first step taken in the present case was the applicant's
petition to the army in April 1987 in which he claimed compensation.
On 12 August 1987 the applicant was informed that the Compensation
Subdivision, acting as first instance administrative authority, had
ordered payment of 30,000 Forints and rejected the remainder of the
claim. Judicial proceedings were begun on 21 November 1990. Those
proceedings are still pending.
The relevant period for the Convention organs in the present case
runs neither from the applicant's petition of 3 April 1987, when he
lodged a petition with the army (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Darnell judgment
of 26 October 1993, Series A no. 272, para. 21), nor from the
introduction of judicial proceedings on 21 November 1990, but rather
from 5 November 1992, that is, the date on which Hungary ratified the
Convention and made a declaration under Article 25 (Art. 25)
recognising the right of individual petition. However, in assessing
the reasonableness of the time that has elapsed after that date,
account must be taken of the then state of the proceedings (Eur. Court
H.R., Pretto and others judgment of 8 December 1983, Series A no. 71,
p. 14, para. 30).
The Commission notes that since 5 November 1992, a little over
one and a half years have elapsed. Even when due regard is had to the
fact that, on 5 November 1992, the applicant's petition had been before
the administrative authorities for over five and a half years, and
before the judicial authorities for almost two years, the Commission
finds, bearing in mind the criteria established by the Convention
organs in assessing the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
(the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and the conduct
of the authorities), that the period since 5 November 1992 does not
exceed the "reasonable time" referred to by Article 6 (Art. 6).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-
founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.
2. The applicant also alleges a violation of Article 6 para. 1
(Art. 6-1) of the Convention in connection with the fairness of the
proceedings.
The Commission first notes in this respect that the Convention,
and Article 6 (Art. 6) in particular, does not contain a right to "full
compensation" for injury caused. In any event, part of the proceedings
are pending at first instance, and so the complaint is therefore
premature.
It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (A. WEITZEL)
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
