CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .sAF34DF15 { width:0.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA284A115 { width:11.79pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sFCBFF887 { width:236.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 73369/01 by József RAJNAI against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   March 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges ,   and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr József Rajnai, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Dunaújváros, Hungary. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         (a)   Administrative proceedings The applicant kept bees in his yard. On 11 April 1995 the Dunaújváros Municipality, acting in accordance with a Decree of the City Council, ordered the applicant to remove the bees from his yard. On 24 May 1995 the Fejér County Administrative Office, on the applicant’s appeal, quashed the first instance administrative decision and remitted the case to the Municipality. In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 18 March 1996 the Municipality, as confirmed by the Administrative Office on 20 June 1996, limited the allowed population of bees to 20 families. Subsequently, the applicant challenged these decisions before the Székesfehérvár District Court. On 28 February 1997 the Constitutional Court partly annulled the City Council’s aforementioned Decree. On 13 January 1998 the District Court, as confirmed by the Fejér County Regional Court on 12 May 1998, quashed the administrative decisions and remitted the case to the Municipality. On 22 January 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for a review of these decisions. Meanwhile in the resumed administrative proceedings, on 8   February   1999 the Municipality, as confirmed by the City Council on 9   March 1999, again limited the allowed population of bees to 20 families. On 12 April 1999 the applicant challenged these decisions before the Fejér County Regional Court. Simultaneously, he challenged all the judges of the Regional Court for bias. On 29 September 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Zala County Regional Court to hear the case. On 12 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. No appeal lay against this decision. Subsequently, the applicant filed a further petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 21 January 2002 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer to assist the applicant. The proceedings are apparently still pending before the Supreme Court. (b) Civil proceedings In September 1999 the applicant’s neighbours brought an action in trespass against the applicant before the Dunaújváros District Court. On 19   January 2000 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the review proceedings before the Supreme Court under (a) above. After the Supreme Court’s decision of 22 January 2001, the proceedings were resumed on 27 June 2001. Subsequently, the applicant challenged the presiding judge for bias. On 23 January 2002 the District Court dismissed his petition. The applicant then challenged all judges of the District Court and the Fejér County Regional Court for bias. On 3 May 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his motion and transferred the case-file to the Regional Court. On 24 June 2002 the Regional Court appointed the Sárbogárd District Court to hear the case. The proceedings are apparently still pending at first instance. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings and, without giving any explanation, that the domestic courts’ procedure has been unfair in both cases. THE LAW 1.   The applicant complains that the proceedings under (a) above have lasted an unreasonably long time. He invokes Article 6 of the Convention which, in its relevant parts, provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... 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 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.   The applicant furthermore complains that the proceedings under (b) above have lasted an unreasonably long time. The Court observes that since September 1999 the proceedings have lasted three years and five months, a period involving one court instance, a suspension and two unsuccessful motions for bias. No particular period of inactivity on the part of the courts can be observed. The Court considers that the overall length of this case did not exceed a reasonable time. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 3.   Lastly, the applicant complains that the proceedings in both cases have been unfair. The Court observes that these cases are still pending and finds that this part of the application is therefore premature. It follows that, in respect of this complaint, the domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as required by Article 35 § 1, and it must be rejected under 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 administrative litigation; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President