Search
document

Document text Analytics

I.R. AND I.R. v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 22049/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2807

Document date: December 1, 1993

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

I.R. AND I.R. v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 22049/93 • ECHR ID: 001-2807

Document date: December 1, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 22049/93

by I.R. and I.R.

against Hungary

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 December 1993, the following members being present:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

Mr. K. ROGGE, 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 March 1993 by

Imre and Imréné Révész against Hungary and registered on 11 June 1993

under file No. 22049/93;

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 applicants are Hungarian nationals born in 1940 and 1942

respectively.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicants complain about two separate sets of civil

proceedings. The first took place in 1980-83, the other one, instituted

by them in 1987, is still pending.

The applicants are co-owners of real property in Monor with six

further co-owners. It has been registered under three separate numbers

in the land register. These separate numbers, theoretically, correspond

to three separate parts of the land; one of them is in the applicants`

possession including a house thereon. The rest of the property,

comprising the two other separate parts and a further house on one of

these parts, is in the possession of the six co-owners.

In 1980 the applicants instituted civil litigation, concerning

the ownership of a certain piece of land, against their neighbours,

other than their co-owners. In 1983 on appeal a final decision was

given by the Pest County Court (Pest Megyei Bíróság).

In 1987, apparently at the beginning of the year, the applicants

instituted further civil proceedings against the co-owners. They

claimed the partition of the property. They also claimed that 419m2 of

land used by the co-owners should be transferred to them or,

alternatively, its value should be paid to them. The co-owners agreed

with their first claim but opposed the second one.

On 23 November 1987 the Monor Court (Monori Bíróság) gave

judgment in the case. It divided the land and rejected the applicants`

second claim.

On 9 July 1988 the Pest County Court quashed the first instance

judgment and ordered the Monor Court to re-hear the case. The second

instance court instructed the first instance court to suspend the case

and let the applicants institute land registration proceedings in order

to clarify the matter.

On 21 October 1988 the Monor Court re-heard the case and

suspended the proceedings in order to let the applicants obtain a final

land registration decision.

The applicants instituted land registration proceedings.

On 7 August 1992 the Monor Land Registration Office (Monori

Földhivatal) rejected the applicants` petition. The decision was served

on the applicants on 10 October 1992.

On 4 November 1992 the Monor Municipal Court (Monori Városi

Bíróság - the former Monor Court) held a hearing. The applicants

informed the court that there was still no final land registration

decision. The court suspended the proceedings again.

On 5 November 1992 the applicants lodged an appeal against the

decision of the Monor Land Registration Office with the Pest County

Land Registration Office (Pest Megyei Földhivatal). There is still no

second instance land registration decision. A second instance land

registration decision, if it rejects the petition, could be challenged

before the municipal and county courts by the applicants.

The applicants also refer to proceedings instituted by them

against their co-owners on 1 February 1985. They do not complain of

these proceedings but state that as a consequence of this litigation

the relationship between them and the co-owners became strained. The

applicants were threatened several times by unspecified persons.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain that they are deprived of their property

and claim that most of the public authorities and officials were biased

and involved in a conspiracy against them. As far as the current civil

litigation is concerned they also complain about the length of the

proceedings. They finally complain about threats without specifying the

offenders and claim that their right to security has been jeopardised.

They do not invoke any specific Convention Articles.

THE LAW

1. With regard to the applicants` complaint concerning the

proceedings in 1980-83 the Commission recalls that according to the

generally recognised principles of international law the Convention

governs only those facts which arose after it came into force in

respect of the party concerned. In the above proceedings the final

decision was given in 1983, i.e. before 5 November 1992, which is the

date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Hungary.

Accordingly, as the proceedings fall within the period prior to

the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Hungary, this part

of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions

of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

2. As to the current proceedings the applicants allege a deprivation

of their property as a result of an alleged conspiracy against them by

biased public authorities and officials dealing with their case.

The Commission notes that the civil proceedings are still pending

before the first instance court, i.e. no final decision has been given

in the case. The complaint concerning deprivation of property is thus

premature.

It follows that there is, at the present stage, no appearance of

a violation of the Convention. The complaint is therefore manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

3. The applicants also complain about threats and claim that their

security of person is jeopardised. In this respect the Commission finds

no issue under the Convention. It follows that this complaint is also

manifestly ill-founded.

4. The applicants finally complain about the length of civil

proceedings which were instituted by them in 1987 and which are still

pending before the first instance court. The Commission considers that

it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the question of

admissibility of this complaint without the observations of both

parties.

The Commission therefore considers that this part of the

application must be adjourned.

For these reasons, the Commission unanimously

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants` complaint

concerning the length of civil proceedings.

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant