CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 décembre 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                       Application No. 22049/93                     by I.R. and I.R.                     against Hungary        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 December 1993, the following members being present:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                G. JÖRUNDSSON                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO             Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 15 March 1993 by Imre and Imréné Révész against Hungary and registered on 11 June 1993 under file No. 22049/93;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicants are Hungarian nationals born in 1940 and 1942 respectively.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.        The applicants complain about two separate sets of civil proceedings. The first took place in 1980-83, the other one, instituted by them in 1987, is still pending.        The applicants are co-owners of real property in Monor with six further co-owners. It has been registered under three separate numbers in the land register. These separate numbers, theoretically, correspond to three separate parts of the land; one of them is in the applicants` possession including a house thereon. The rest of the property, comprising the two other separate parts and a further house on one of these parts, is in the possession of the six co-owners.        In 1980 the applicants instituted civil litigation,   concerning the ownership of a certain piece of land, against their neighbours, other than their co-owners. In 1983 on appeal a final decision was given by the Pest County Court (Pest Megyei Bíróság).        In 1987, apparently at the beginning of the year, the applicants instituted further civil proceedings against the co-owners. They claimed the partition of the property. They also claimed that 419m2 of land used by the co-owners should be transferred to them or, alternatively, its value should be paid to them. The co-owners agreed with their first claim but opposed the second one.        On 23 November 1987 the Monor Court (Monori Bíróság) gave judgment in the case. It divided the land and rejected the applicants` second claim.        On 9 July 1988 the Pest County Court quashed the first instance judgment and ordered the Monor Court to re-hear the case. The second instance court instructed the first instance court to suspend the case and let the applicants institute land registration proceedings in order to clarify the matter.        On 21 October 1988 the Monor Court re-heard the case and suspended the proceedings in order to let the applicants obtain a final land registration decision.        The applicants instituted land registration proceedings.        On 7 August 1992 the Monor Land Registration Office (Monori Földhivatal) rejected the applicants` petition. The decision was served on the applicants on 10 October 1992.        On 4 November 1992 the Monor Municipal Court (Monori Városi Bíróság - the former Monor Court) held a hearing. The applicants informed the court that there was still no final land registration decision. The court suspended the proceedings again.        On 5 November 1992 the applicants lodged an appeal against the decision of the Monor Land Registration Office with the Pest County Land Registration Office (Pest Megyei Földhivatal). There is still no second instance land registration decision. A second instance land registration decision, if it rejects the petition, could be challenged before the municipal and county courts by the applicants.        The applicants also refer to proceedings instituted by them against their co-owners on 1 February 1985. They do not complain of these proceedings but state that as a consequence of this litigation the relationship between them and the co-owners became strained. The applicants were threatened several times by unspecified persons.   COMPLAINTS        The applicants complain that they are deprived of their property and claim that most of the public authorities and officials were biased and involved in a conspiracy against them. As far as the current civil litigation is concerned they also complain about the length of the proceedings. They finally complain about threats without specifying the offenders and claim that their right to security has been jeopardised. They do not invoke any specific Convention Articles.   THE LAW   1.    With regard to the applicants` complaint concerning the proceedings in 1980-83 the Commission recalls that according to the generally recognised principles of international law the Convention governs only those facts which arose after it came into force in respect of the party concerned. In the above proceedings the final decision was given in 1983, i.e. before 5 November 1992, which is the date of the entry into force of the Convention with respect to Hungary.        Accordingly, as the proceedings fall within the period prior to the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Hungary, this part of the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).     2.     As to the current proceedings the applicants allege a deprivation of their property as a result of an alleged conspiracy against them by biased public authorities and officials dealing with their case.        The Commission notes that the civil proceedings are still pending before the first instance court, i.e. no final decision has been given in the case. The complaint concerning deprivation of property is thus premature.        It follows that there is, at the present stage, no appearance of a violation of the Convention. The complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   3.     The applicants also complain about threats and claim that their security of person is jeopardised. In this respect the Commission finds no issue under the Convention. It follows that this complaint is also manifestly ill-founded.   4.     The applicants finally complain about the length of civil proceedings which were instituted by them in 1987 and which are still pending before the first instance court. The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the question of admissibility of this complaint without the observations of both parties.        The Commission therefore considers that this part of the application must be adjourned.        For these reasons, the Commission unanimously        DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicants` complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings.        DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber          (K. ROGGE)                         (S. TRECHSEL)