SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MULARONI

I agree with the reasoning and the conclusion of the majority but for paragraph 29 of the judgment which concern s the Supreme Court ’ s refusal to grant the applicant leave to appeal.

The reasoning followed by the Court , for instance , in the case of Ilvesviita-Sallinen v. Finland (no. 59578/00, decision of 22 June 2004 ) should be applied to this part of the present application as well.

When a Supreme Court determines, in a preliminary examination of a case, whether or not the conditions required for granting leave to appeal have been fulfilled, it is not making a decision relating to “civil rights and obligations”. I n my view, Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply to the instant proceedings, in which the Hungarian Supreme Court, without dealing with the merits, refused to grant leave to appeal against a decision of the Regional Court.

I consider that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

[1] EUR 43,660

[2] EUR 18,980