CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 septembre 2004

.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 } .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 } .sA845BF37 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s70114485 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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 } .s99671D1 { width:16.88pt; display:inline-block } .sEAD7759E { width:228.15pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 4411/02 by László CSEPINSZKY and Lászlóné CSEPINSZKY against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr László Csepinszky, and Mrs Lászlóné Csepinszky, are Hungarian nationals, who were born in 1925 and 1934 respectively and live in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.   1. First set of proceedings On 1 March 1995 the applicants issued a payment order against Mr. M.T. requesting him to pay them 15,200 Hungarian forints (HUF). M.T. contested the order before the Buda Central District Court. The court held hearings on 24 January, 18 June and 12 December 1996, 16 May 1997, 23 April 1998. The next hearing in the case was held on 17   February 2000. On 25 February 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicants' claims. On 3 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. 2. Second set of proceedings   In the meantime, on 1 April 1996 the applicants issued another payment order against M.T. claiming HUF 15,487. M.T. contested the order before the Buda Central District Court. The court held hearings on 21 June, 13 September and 31 October 1996, 5 June and 25 September 1997. A hearing scheduled for 21 November 1997 was postponed by the District Court ex officio . The next hearing was held on 7 March 2000 when the parties failed to appear. The applicants had requested that the hearing be held in their absence. On the same day the court delivered its judgment and dismissed the applicants' claims. On 15 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants' appeal. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. THE LAW 1. As regards the length of the proceedings in their two cases, the applicants allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads: “In the determination of his 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 the complaint in so far as it concerns the first set of proceedings 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. As regards the second set of proceedings, the Court observes that they commenced on 1 April 1996 and ended on 15 November 2000. They lasted four years and seven months before two court instances. It is true that the case file appears to disclose a period of inactivity between 21   November   1997 and 7 March 2000. However, for the Court, the overall length did not exceed a “reasonable time” (see, mutatis mutandis, De Simone v. Italy (dec.), no. 40403/98, 21 September 1999). Consequently, this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court Decides unanimously to adjourn the examination of the applicants' complaint concerning the length of the first set of proceedings; Declares by a majority the remainder of the application inadmissible.   T.L. Early   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President