SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 70555/01 by Antal BŐ CZY against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 21 September 2004 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr L. Loucaides , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2000 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Antal Bőczy, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest . The respondent Gov ernment 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 1 December 1994 the Budapest and Pest County Pension Authority dismissed the applicant ' s request for a disability pension. On 19 January 1995 the Pension Authority ' s Director dismissed his administrative appeal. Subsequently, the applicant challenged this decision before the Pest Central District Court.

On 12 November 1996 the District Court held a hearing. On 17 December 1996 it appointed the Judicial Medical Expert Institute to examine the applicant ' s state of health. On 26 March 1997 the Institute submitted its opinion.

On 10 November 1997 the District Court held a hearing. On 24 November 1997 it appointed the Medical Science Council ' s Judicial Committee to give a second opinion. The Committee submitted its opinion on 2 March 1998 .

On 11 May 1998 the District Court held a further hearing and stayed the proceedings at the applicant ' s request. On 6 October 1998 he requested th at the proceedings be resumed .

On 11 November 1998 the District Court held a hearing and dismissed the applicant ' s claims. The District Court was satisfied that, in view of his working capacity, the applicant was not eligible for a disability pension. On 29 December 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision.

In the appeal proceedings, on 16 November 1999 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing. On 29 February 2000 it upheld the first-instance decision.

On 9 October 2000 the applicant requested the re-opening of the case. On 26 April 2001 the Pest Central District Court held a hearing. Relying on further documents and the opinion of an expert, on 31 October 2002 the court rejected the applicant ' s request. On 30 September 2003 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant ' s appeal .

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and the fairness of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the administrative litigation lasted an unreasonably long time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... , everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Government contest this. They note that the applicant ' s request to have the case re-open ed , which was pending before the courts when the complaint was communicated , proved to be unsuccessful. Given that this remedy was in effective, the proceedings must be considered to have ended on 29 February 2000 with the Regional Court ' s decision. Moreover, they claim that the involv e ment of experts was a complicating factor in the case .

The applicant contests these views.

The Court observes that the period to be considered began, at the latest, in December 1994 when the applicant appealed against the decision of the Budapest and Pest County Pension Authority to reject his request for a disability pension (see, mutatis mutandis, G.S. v. Austria , no. 26297/95, § 32, 21 December 1999) and ended on 29 February 2000 with the Regional Court ' s decision . The Court recalls the Convention organs ' case-law according to which Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings which determine whether a case in a civil matter should be re-opened (see, X v. Austria , no. 7761/77, Commission ' s decision of 8 May 1978 , DR 14, pp. 171, 173). Consequently, the period between 9 October 2000 , when the applicant request ed to have the case re-open ed , and 30 December 2003 , when his request was finally rejected by the Regional Court , cannot be taken into consideration. The proceedings therefore lasted five years and two months, a period involv ing one administrative and two court instances .

The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the criteria established by its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

As to the conduct of the applicant, the Court observes that on 11 May 1998 the applicant requested that the proceedings be stayed. The case was resumed on 6 October 1998 . The resulting delay of five months is therefore attributable to the applicant.

As regards the remainin g period of four years and nine months, the Court observes that the District Court was inactive between 2 May 1995 and 12 November 1996 . However, taking into account the delay attributable to the applicant and the fact that the case was examined by three levels of jurisdiction, it is satisfied that the overall length of the proceedings is not substantial enough to be considered excessive ( Sergi v. Italy (dec . ), no. 46998/99, 26 September 2000 ).

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant also complains about the fairness of the proceedings. The Court considers that there is nothing in the case file which indicates that the courts hearing the case lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. The mere fact that the applicant is dissatisfied with the outcome of the litigation cannot of itself raise an arguable claim of a breach of Article 6.

It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President