SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 27641/10 Kinga TÓTH against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 30 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President,

András Sajó ,

Robert Spano , judges,

and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Kinga Tóth , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Kalocsa .

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

On 4 December 2002 the applicant brought a civil action against two private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to declare null and void a lifetime annuity contract concluded between her predecessor and the respondents. The court gave judgment on 21 October 2008.

This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 October 2009. This judgment was served on the applicant on 5 November 2009.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings to which she was a party had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement” of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Government submitted that the beginning of the running of the six-month time-limit for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention was the service of the second-instance judgment on the applicant on 5 November 2009. Therefore, the application had been introduced out of time.

The applicant contested these views in general terms.

The Court points out that the six-month rule is aimed at, inter alia , providing the prospective applicant with sufficient time to consider whether to lodge an application and, if so, to decide on the specific complaints and arguments to be raised (see O ’ Loughlin v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ), no. 23274/04 , 25 August 2005), as well as facilitating the establishment of facts in a case, the passage of time rendering problematic any fair examination of the issues raised (see Nee v. Ireland ( dec. ), no. 52787/99 , 30 January 2003).

Turning to the present case, the Court notes that the second-instance judgment was served on the applicant on 5 November 2009. However, she introduced the application only on 10 May 2010, that is, more than six months later. There is nothing in the case-file exculpating the applicant of this delay.

It follows that the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application inadmissible.

Abel Campos Helen Keller              Deputy Registrar President