SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 59089/00 by Andrej BALOGH against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 June 2004 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr L. Loucaides ,

Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mrs W. Thomassen , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 April 2000,

Having regard to the Court's decision of  23 April 2004 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and its decision of the same date to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention with a view to examining the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having regard to the parties' observations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrej Balogh, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 30 September 1992 the applicant was dismissed from work. Subsequently, and before the end of 1992, he filed an action with the Budapest Labour Court to have the dismissal decision annulled.

On 21 September 1993 the Labour Court rejected his action. On 24 March 1995 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal.

In the course of subsequent review proceedings, the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's decision on 16 January 1996 and remitted the case to the latter court. The Supreme Court held in its ruling that the taking of evidence in the case had been insufficient.

In the resumed proceedings, the Regional Court, on 17 June 1998, gave an interim judgment. It amended the Labour Court's judgment and held that the applicant's dismissal had been unlawful.

The proceedings concerning the applicant's pecuniary claims were resumed before the Labour Court. On 27 May 1999 the Labour Court awarded the applicant 330,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest by way of severance pay and HUF 7,181,000 plus accrued interest for outstanding wages. The judgment was served on the applicant on 24 September 1999. In the absence of any appeal, the judgment became final on 11 October 1999.

The Government have submitted the avis de réception attached to the letter containing the decision. They maintain that the handwritten date of service on the avis de réception is 24 September 1999.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time and were unfair.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time. He invokes 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 fair ... hearing within a reasonable time... by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Government argue that the applicant failed to introduce his application within the six-month period required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In this connection, they observe that the Labour Court's decision in the case was served on the applicant on 24 September 1999 and became final on 11 October 1999, whereas the application was introduced only on 28 April 2000.

The applicant contests this argument. In his application form he had stated that he had received the final decision on 11 November 1999. In the same document, he had also stated that the final decision had been served on him on 28 November 1999. In reply to the Government's observations he alleges that he has not yet received a copy of the decision indicating that the decision is now final ( jogerősítő záradék ).

Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:

“The Court may only deal with the matter ... within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”

The Court recalls that the six months' rule, in reflecting the wish of the Contracting Parties to prevent past decisions being called into question, after an indefinite lapse of time, serves the interests not only of the respondent Government but also of legal certainty as a value in itself. It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, for example, Walker v. the United Kingdom (dec), no. 34979/97, ECHR 2000-I). The Court further recalls that where an applicant is entitled to be served ex officio with a written copy of the final domestic decision, the object and the purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the written judgment (see Worm v. Austria judgment of 29 August 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-V, p. 1534, § 33).

The Government have provided evidence to support their submission that the decision was served on 24 September 1999. In particular, they have asserted that the avis de réception was stamped at the despatching Budapest Post Office on 24 September 1999, and the handwritten note showing its receipt by the addressee bears the same date.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the service of the final decision took place on 24 September 1999. Accordingly, the six-month time-limit must be taken to run from that date. However, the applicant lodged his application only on 28 April 2000, i.e. more than six months later.

It follows that the application has been introduced outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complains that the proceedings were unfair. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court observes that the applicant failed to appeal against the Labour Court's decision of 27 May 1999. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

T.L. Early J.-P. Costa              Deputy Registrar President