CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 mai 2020

.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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C144E8F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 22137/16 HORTOBÁGYI LÚDTENYÉSZTŐ ZRT against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   May 2020 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 11   April 2016, 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 was represented by Mr V. Kodela, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The applicant’s 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 (excessive length of civil proceedings) 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 protraction of the proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that in a previous application (no.   35490/15) the applicant concluded a friendly settlement with the Government concerning the length of the same proceedings as in the present case. That previous application was consequently struck out of the list of cases by the Court on 13 December 2018 (see, Huszar and Others v.   Hungary , [Committee], nos. 48523/13 and 9 others, 13 December 2018). The remaining duration to be considered in the present case, from 13   December 2018 until 17 June 2019, cannot be considered excessive. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2020.   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 registration   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 22137/16 11/04/2016 HORTOBÁGYI LÚDTENYÉSZTŐ ZRT 03/01/1994 Kodela Viktor Budapest 13/12/2018   17/06/2019   6 month(s) and 5 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction