European Court of Human Rights

SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 16407/05
by Gusztáv SZTERGÁR
against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
15 January 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
András Baka,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Antonella Mularoni,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović, judges,
Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 April 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gusztáv Sztergár, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Pécs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

A. The labour dispute

The applicant worked for a mining company called “Mecseki Szénbányák” (“the company”) since 1972. In February 1986 he had an accident in the mine, full responsibility for which was recognised by the employer. Subsequently, he occupied a post in the company that was compatible with his altered working abilities.

In 1989 the applicant brought an action against his employer before the Pécs Labour Court inviting the court to oblige the defendant to reimburse him the difference between his actual wages and those received prior to the accident. In 1991 the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, partly found for him.

B. The liquidation procedure

In the meantime, the applicant’s employer went into liquidation on 8 October 1991. On 14 December 1991 the applicant was dismissed from his job and 174,135 Hungarian forints (approximately 690 Euros) were paid to him as severance payment. The applicant’s further claims, including the enforcement of the final decision of proceeding “A”, were channelled into the ongoing liquidation procedure. Ultimately, the review bench of the Supreme Court awarded him HUF 124,480 (approximately EUR 494) in compensation in 1997, which, as far as it can be determined from the case file, was never paid to him. Because of his abovementioned pending and registered claim (hitelezői igény), he remained a “creditor” and, therefore, a party to the proceedings until the end.

The liquidation procedure ended with the decision of the Baranya County Regional Court, which became final on 22 December 2005. On 23 January 2006 the Baranya County Regional Court deleted the applicant’s former employer from the Company Register.

C. The first action for compensation

In 2000 the applicant, being dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings described under points “A” and “B” above, brought an official liability action against the Baranya County Regional Court before the Tolna County Regional Court, requesting altogether HUF 1,852,764 (approximately EUR 7,347) and accrued interest in compensation, as well as claiming an additional monthly annuity of HUF 25,000 (approximately EUR 100). On 30 November 2000 the Regional Court dismissed his action in the absence of any illegal or unfair conduct of the defendant. On appeal, on 12 June 2003 the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, upheld the first-instance decision.

D. The second action for compensation

In 2002 the applicant still being dissatisfied with the former proceedings, brought another official liability action against the Baranya County Regional Court before the Vas County Regional Court requesting altogether HUF 1,771,236 (approximately EUR 7,036) in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On 19 April 2004 the Regional Court dismissed his action. On 24 January 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal since he had lodged it outside the time-limit prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. The latter decision was upheld by the Győr Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, on 21 April 2005.

E. The pension dispute

In 1994 the Baranya County Directorate of Pension Insurance (Baranya Megyei Nyugdíjbiztosítási Igazgatóság) established the disability pension of the applicant. In 1994 the applicant sought judicial review against this administrative decision before the Pécs District Court, requesting the court to raise the amount of his pension. Finally, the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, found for him and awarded him a higher pension on 12 January 2005.

F. The criminal proceedings

In 1998 the applicant accused an unknown individual of forgery before the Pécs District Public Prosecutor’s Office. On 1 July 1998 the Prosecutor’s Office rejected the accusation as time-barred, since it concerned facts which had taken place in 1991. The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision with the Baranya County Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office. The latter upheld the first-instance decision on 5 September 2000.

COMPLAINTS

Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time. Moreover, he complains in that connection about the outcome of the proceedings and that the courts dealing with the cases were not impartial. Lastly, he complains that his accusations against a private individual did not lead to any conviction.

THE LAW

“In the determination of civil rights and obligations..., everyone is entitled to a ... 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 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. As to the outcome and the unfairness of the labour dispute (proceedings “A”), the Court notes that it ended in 1991. However, the Convention entered into force with respect to Hungary on 5 November 1992. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.

4. As to the first compensation dispute (proceedings “C”), the Court notes that the final decision in the case was given on 12 June 2003. However, the application was lodged only on 15 April 2005, i.e. more than six months later. It follows that this aspect of the application has been introduced outside the six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 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 the liquidation proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President