SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
Application no. 2345/06
by György DEÉS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
	,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 January 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr György Deés, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Alsónémedi.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of a house in the town of Alsónémedi. In the late nineties the volume of traffic in the town increased since a fee was introduced in the highway in the area and lot of heavy vehicles choose alternative routes in order to avoid the payment of the charge. Subsequently, the applicant observed damage to the wall of his house. He obtained the opinion of an expert, who stated that the damage was due to the heavy traffic. He alleges that because of the increased nuisance, pollution and distasteful smell it is very unpleasant to live in his home.
In February 1999 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the Pest County State Public Road Maintenance Company before the Budapest Regional Court. In April 2000 the Regional Court dismissed his action. On appeal, the Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
In the resumed proceedings, the Regional Court obtained the opinion of an expert, documentary evidence and testimonies of the parties. However, it refused the applicant’s motion to obtain the opinion of another expert since it was of the view that the original opinion was thorough and precise.
In February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It found that it was undisputable that the applicant had suffered damage. However, it also established that this was not the result of the increased traffic. Moreover, the Regional Court pointed out that the defendant had spent more than one billion Hungarian forints on developing the road system in the region and had put up new road signs in order to deviate traffic from Alsónémedi. In other words, the Maintenance Company had carried out every measure that could reasonably be expected in the circumstances to protect the applicant’s interest.
Lastly, the Regional Court underlined in this connection that the Maintenance Company had to balance competing interests, since the closure of a public road might have been advantageous to the inhabitants of Alsónémedi but could have caused disproportionate prejudice to the other users or providers of public and private transportation. The applicant appealed. In November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision.
COMPLAINTS
Relying on Articles 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the length and the unfairness of the proceedings. In particular, he submits that the Regional Court refused to obtain the opinion of another expert. Moreover, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that because of the nuisance, pollution and smell caused by the heavy traffic, his home became almost uninhabitable.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides as follows:
“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.
2. The applicant also complains that, as a consequence of the nuisance, pollution and smell caused by the heavy traffic, his home became almost uninhabitable. He relies on Article 8 of the Convention, which, in its relevant part, provides as follows:
“1.  Everyone has the right to respect for his ... his home ....
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. Concerning the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, and, in particular, the refusal to obtain another expert’s opinion, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. It is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 § 1 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the domestic courts (see  [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28). In the present case, there is no appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, 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 complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the right to respect for the home;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
		
	   Deputy Registrar	President