FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30777/15 Andrásné NAGY against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 14 December 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Péter Paczolay, Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 30777/15) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 September 2015 by a Hungarian national, Ms Andrásné Nagy, who was born in 1955 and lives in Debrecen (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr L. Koós, a lawyer practising in Debrecen;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the applicant’s inability to gain information about her biological origins and adoption to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent at the Ministry of Justice, Mr Z. Tallódi, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns the attempt of the applicant, who was adopted as a child, to obtain information from the authorities about her real identity at birth, her biological parents and, generally, the circumstances of her adoption.

The applicant was abandoned by her parents at birth. She was adopted in 1960 by a couple and her family name was changed. The applicant stated that in 1971 she had been the victim of sexual violence and her adoptive family sent her away. She had been placed in a social care institution in Nyíregyháza and subsequently moved to a shelter for mothers and their children.

In 1976 she was issued a new identity card with a new family name as her adoption had apparently been terminated. Her adoptive parents’ name had been deleted from her birth certificate and she had been registered with a new family name in 1974.

In 2007 the applicant requested a copy of her birth certificate. Based on the new data registered on her birth certificate she managed to find her biological mother.

The same year she also requested information concerning her adoption from the Debrecen Guardianship Authority. Upon an enquiry from the Guardianship Authority, the Hajdú-Bihar County Archives informed the applicant that her files could not be found in the archives.

The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention of her inability to obtain non-identifying information about her birth family. She maintained that she had suffered severe damage as a result of not knowing her personal history.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

The Government argued that the application had been lodged out of time, as the applicant had lacked diligence both before the domestic authorities – for only requesting information about her origins in 2007 – and before the Court – for only lodging her application on 15 September 2015, whereas the Convention entered into force in respect of Hungary in 1993.

The applicant did not comment on this issue.

As a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009).

In the present case the applicant was informed in 2007 by the Guardianship Authority that the county archives, responsible to keep her records, could not locate the relevant documents. It is also apparent that at this point the applicant was made aware of the fact that her request for information about her adoption could yield no results. Since no effective remedy existed in domestic law with respect to this situation, the applicant should have raised her complaint under the Convention not more than six months after the date she had gained knowledge of the failure of the domestic authorities to provide information about her adoption and family at birth. However, the applicant lodged her application with the Court on 15 September 2015, that is some eight years afterwards.

Therefore, the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention as having been introduced outside the six-month time-limit.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 January 2022.

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President