SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 58893/00 by Lajos MAGYAR against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4 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 with the European Commission of Human Rights on 12 November 1996,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Lajos Magyar, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1937 and lives in Budapest. His previous application (no. 32396/96) concerned, inter alia , the length of expropriation proceedings. In that case the Court held, in its judgment of 11 January 2001, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and awarded just satisfaction.

A. The circumstances of the present case

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

(a) On 15 April 1996 the Budapest District Land Registry dismissed, on the ground that documents were missing, the applicant’s request that his joint ownership of a real property be entered in the Land Register.

On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed an administrative appeal. On 24 June 1996 the Budapest Metropolitan Land Registry dismissed the appeal.

On 12 August 1996 the applicant brought an action to challenge the administrative decisions.

On 14 January, 18 April and 2 September 1997 the Pest Central District Court held hearings. On the latter date the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of a connected ownership dispute.

On the applicant’s appeal, the Budapest Regional Court on 3 June 1998 ordered the resumption of the proceedings.

On 16 April 1999 the Regional Court quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the Land Registry.

On the Land Registry’s appeal, on 10 May 2001 the Supreme Court, acting as the second-instance court, quashed the Regional Court’s decision and dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that the administrative proceedings had been in compliance with the law.

On 29 January 2002 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s petition for review since it was time-barred.

(b) In May 1994 the Health Insurance Fund of Budapest and Pest County issued an order for payment against the applicant on account of his outstanding health insurance contributions. The applicant challenged the order before the Pest Central District Court.

On 14 December 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s motion, pointing out that the order for payment constituted part of the tax enforcement proceedings which were being taken against him and was not as such susceptible to court review. The District Court reminded him that any claims he had concerning any genuine dispute with the social security authorities as to the amount to be paid to the social security scheme could be pursued in separate administrative proceedings.

On 24 September 1996 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision. The applicant’s subsequent application to the Supreme Court appears to have remained unanswered.

(c) On 8 January 1998 the Budapest Pension Board took a decision on the monthly amount of the applicant’s old age pension. On 21 May 1998 the Director of the Pension Board dismissed his administrative appeal. The applicant challenged these administrative decisions before the Pest Central District Court.

On 4 November 1998 the District Court held a hearing and dismissed the action, holding that the administrative decisions in question had been taken in accordance with the relevant law.

On 28 September 1999 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. Subsequently he filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 19 September 2000 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for him and, on 19 December 2001, it dismissed his petition for review.

(d) On 27 July 1997 the association of flat-owners in the building where the applicant lived brought an action before the Pest Central District Court seeking payment by the applicant of outstanding heating fees.

On 19 October 2000 the District Court ordered the applicant to pay some 270,000 Hungarian forints plus interest.

On 7 December 2001 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal.

On 24 April 2002 the Supreme Court rejected his petition as the disputed amount did not exceed the statutory minimum giving it jurisdiction to entertain such petitions.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the Hungarian authorities’ decisions were wrong and that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time. He invokes Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.

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) above lasted an unreasonably long time.

The Court observes that the case under (c) lasted somewhat less than 4 years, a period involving two administrative and three court instances; and that the proceedings under (d) lasted 4 years and nine months, a period involving three court instances. 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 under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

3. The applicant also complains that the decisions given by the domestic courts in the proceedings under (a), (c) and (d) above 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 likewise manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

4. Lastly, the applicant complains that the decisions of the domestic courts in the case under (b) above were wrong and that the proceedings were unreasonably long.

The Court observes that the applicant’s action concerned his opposition to the enforcement of outstanding social security contributions. The domestic courts repeatedly pointed out that they had no competence in such cases and that the applicant should have brought an administrative action against the social security authority if he wished to challenge the latter’s assessment of his arrears. The applicant failed to avail himself of this opportunity. Instead, he chose to challenge the enforcement decision before a court which had no competence on such matters. Consequently, it cannot be maintained that the impugned proceedings concerned a genuine and serious dispute over the applicant’s civil rights and obligations. Article 6 of the Convention is therefore not applicable to the case.

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention’s provisions within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected under 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 the litigation in respect of the land registry decisions;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Dollé J.-P. Costa Registrar President