CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 novembre 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 } .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 } .s91F73ADA { margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s6983F43D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:27.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sDD6F64E2 { width:137.11pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s823FE49B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 57835/19 Éva Margit LEÉBNÉ TÓTH against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   November 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Wennerström, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24   October 2019, 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 Z. Szender, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 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”). A complaint based on the same facts was also communicated 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, the Court notes that the domestic proceedings lasted about three years and five months before two levels of jurisdiction (see the appended table) which cannot be considered excessive. 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 concerning the lack of any effective remedy for her complaint about the length of the proceedings. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 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 provision 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 26 November 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   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 Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 57835/19 24/10/2019 Éva Margit LEÉBNÉ TÓTH 1939 Szender Zoltán Budapest 06/09/2016   13/02/2020   3 years and 5 months and 8 days 2 levels of jurisdiction