CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 octobre 1996

.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. 31973/96                       by Ráfael ÚRI                       against Hungary         The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 16 October 1996, the following members being present:              Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  B. MARXER                  G.B. REFFI                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 April 1996 by Ráfael ÚRI against Hungary and registered on 19 June 1996 under file No. 31973/96;         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 applicant, born in 1950, is a Hungarian national. He resides in Szilvásvárad, Hungary. He is a dispatcher.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         In February 1988 the applicant's wife brought a divorce action against him before the Eger District Court (Egri Városi Bíróság).         In March 1989 the Eger District Court, upon charges raised by the applicant's wife, convicted him of failure adequately to supervise and care for his children (kiskorúak veszélyeztetése) and sentenced him to ten months' imprisonment. His appeal was to no avail. In December 1989 the Heves County Regional Court (Heves Megyei Bíróság) admitted the applicant's request for re-trial. In October 1990 the District Court, as confirmed by the Regional Court in March 1991, acquitted the applicant.         On 29 June 1994 the District Court pronounced the divorce. The District Court awarded the custody over two of the parties' children to the plaintiff, whereas the custody over the third child was awarded to the applicant. The District Court ordered the applicant to pay child maintenance to the plaintiff. It arranged for the access to the children in respect of both parties, divided the right to use the parties' municipal flat between them and arranged for the separation of their marital property. In the reasoning of its decision, the District Court relied on evidence given by numerous witnesses and on expert psychology evidence.         On 8 May 1995, following appeals, the Heves County Regional Court upheld in essence the first instance decision, but granted the right to use the flat in question solely to the plaintiff, ordering her to pay compensation therefor to the applicant.         On 28 November 1995 the Supreme Court (Legfelsobb Bíróság) rejected ex officio the applicant's petition for review, due to formal shortcomings. The Supreme Court found that the applicant, despite due notification, had failed to supplement his petition, as required by the Supreme Court. It appears that this decision was served upon the applicant on 3 January 1996.   COMPLAINTS         The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 that the above proceedings were unfair. Moreover, he submits that the civil court proceedings were unreasonably lengthy.   THE LAW   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) that the above proceedings were unfair.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), as far as relevant, reads as follows:         "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal ..."   a.     In respect of the applicant's complaint relating to the criminal proceedings, the Commission observes that it relates to events prior to 5 November 1992, the date on which Hungary ratified the Convention and, therefore, falls outside the competence ratione temporis of the Commission.         This part of the application must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   b.     As regards the alleged unfairness of the civil court proceedings, the Commission considers that, in conformity with Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law. In this respect the Commission notes that the applicant failed properly to pursue a petition for review before the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Commission finds that he has not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him under Hungarian law.         It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   2.     The applicant further complains that the civil court proceedings before the Eger District Court lasted unreasonably long.         The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government.           For these reasons, the Commission,         DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint       about the length of the divorce proceedings;         and, unanimously,         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber