CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 17352/15 R.A. TRADE KFT against Hungary (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   January 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 April 2015, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant company’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant company was represented by Ms M. Székely, a lawyer practising in Budapest. Its complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the length of the proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the applicant company is the sole shareholder of Váci58 Kft, which is the applicant in application no.   17342/15. This latter case concerns the duration of the same litigation and has been settled through a friendly settlement between the parties (see, Petruska against Hungary (dec.), nos. 6910/15 and 9 others, 13   December 2018). In view of the above, the Court finds that the present complaints are substantially the same as the subject matter of application no. 17342/15 that has already been examined by the Court and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   2 (b) and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 7 February 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of registration   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 17352/15 04/04/2015 R.A. Trade Kft 01/02/1990 Székely Marianna Budapest 02/05/2000   11/09/2014   14 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction