SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 73376/01 by Imre SZILÁGYI against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) , sitting on 11 March 2003 as a Chamber composed of

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Imre Szilágyi, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.

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

(a) Labour-law proceedings against E. Rt

On 18 October 1995 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, the E. Rt, seeking the annulment of the termination of his employment and claiming payment of outstanding night-shift allowances.

On 21 May and 6 September 1996 the Budapest Labour Court held hearings and, on 15 November 1996, it dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 2 January 1997 the applicant appealed. On 16 August 1997 he finalised his appeal.

On 5 November 1997 the Budapest Regional Court upheld, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 9 December 1998, the first-instance decision in so far as it concerned the termination of the applicant’s employment. As regards the issue of the outstanding night-shift allowances, the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court’s decision and remitted the case to it.

In the resumed proceedings, the Labour Court held a hearing on 17 December 1999. Subsequently, all of the judges of the Labour Court declared bias and requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 9 May 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case.

On 10 October 2000 the Pest County Labour Court ordered a judicial auditing expert to intervene in the proceedings. His appointment was, however, cancelled on 4 December 2000. On 18 May, 22 June and 14 September 2001 the Labour Court held hearings. On 7 November 2001 the case-file was again transferred to the Supreme Court, apparently for reasons of bias. The proceedings appear to be still pending at first instance.

(b) Civil proceedings against the Hungarian Post

In the context of the alleged non-delivery of one of his letters, the applicant brought an action in 1996 against the Hungarian Post claiming compensation.

On 31 March 1998 the Pest Central District Court, as confirmed by the Budapest Regional Court on 1 December 1998, dismissed the applicant’s action. On 7 February 1999 he filed a petition for review.

On 8 March 2000 the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance judgment. The applicant’s request for the re-opening of the case was unsuccessful.

(c) Labour law proceedings against K. Kft

In December 1998 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, K. Kft, seeking the annulment of the termination of his employment and claiming the payment of outstanding wages for the extra hours he had worked as a stoker. The judges of the Budapest Labour Court declared bias and requested permission to withdraw from the case. Subsequently, the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case.

On 16 February 2001 the Labour Court partly admitted the applicant’s claims. On 1 April 2001 he appealed.

On 3 April 2002 the Pest County Regional Court held a hearing and, on 10 April 2002, it confirmed the first-instance decision in substance. This decision was not subject to the petition for review procedure.

(d) Labour law proceedings against S. University

On 1 December 1998 the applicant brought an action against his former employer, a university, seeking the annulment of the termination of his employment and claiming the payment of outstanding salary adjustments.

On 19 January and 9 February 1999 the Budapest Labour Court held hearings. On the latter date it dismissed the applicant’s claims. On 25 February 1999 the applicant appealed.

On 30 June 1999 the Budapest Regional Court upheld, as confirmed by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 8 November 2000, the Labour Court’s decision with regard to the termination of his employment. As to the issue of salary adjustments, it remitted the case to the first-instance court.

In the resumed proceedings before the Budapest Labour Court, all of the judges declared bias and requested permission to withdraw from the case. On 9 May 2000 the Supreme Court appointed the Pest County Labour Court to hear the case.

On 10 May 2001 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On 17 June 2001 he appealed.

On 3 April 2002 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision was not subject to the petition for review procedure.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings and, without giving any further explanation, that the domestic courts’ decisions were wrong.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the proceedings under (a) lasted an unreasonably long time. He invokes Article 6 of the Convention which, in its relevant parts, 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 Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicant furthermore complains that the proceedings under (c) and (d) lasted an unreasonably long time.

The Court observes that both cases lasted 3 years and 4 months, periods involving two and three court instances, respectively. No particular period of inactivity on the part of the courts can be observed in either case. The Court considers that the overall length of these cases did not exceed a reasonable time.

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.

3. The applicant also complains that the proceedings under (b) above lasted an unreasonably long time and that the domestic courts reached wrong decisions.

The Court observes that the final domestic decision was given by the Supreme Court on 8 March 2000, whereas the application was introduced only on 8 December 2000, i.e. more than six months later.

It follows that this part of the application was lodged outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

4. Moreover, the applicant complains that the decisions given so far by the domestic courts in the proceedings under (a) were wrong.

The Court observes that the proceedings are still pending at first instance and finds that this part of the application is therefore premature.

It follows that, in respect of this complaint, the domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as required by Article 35 § 1, and it must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

5. Lastly, the applicant complains that the domestic courts’ decisions in the cases under (c) and (d) were wrong.

The Court considers that there is nothing in the case-file indicating that the courts sitting in these cases lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.

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.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of his action under (a) against E. Rt;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President