CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 août 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no.   15611/17 Magdaléna POPOVICS against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   August 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14   February 2017, 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’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, and noting that the applicant contributed to certain delays, the Court considers that the overall length of the proceedings, less than four years for two levels of jurisdiction, did not exceed a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaint The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3 (a) of the Convention. It follows that she has no “arguable claim” of a violation of her rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae   with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 §   3   (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   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 birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 15611/17 14/02/2017 Magdaléna Popovics 16/03/1960 18/10/2012   19/09/2016   3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)   2 level(s) of jurisdiction