CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 mai 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5AAEE4F1 { width:148.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .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 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 26506/22 Alex KOLOMPÁR against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   May   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24   May 2022, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. 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 the Government’s observations according to which the applicant filed administrative claims of inadequate prison conditions on 25 March 2019 and 10 March 2020 and the cases were decided on by the prison governor on 2 April 2019 and 12 March 2020, respectively. According to the Government, these decisions terminated the procedure, in the absence of any further action. Initially, the applicant stated on the application form that he had lodged a related compensation claim with the High Court on 2 April 2019, which case was still pending. However, he did not submit any elements, documents or information on these alleged proceedings. After having received their observations, he did not dispute the Government’s position, either. In these circumstances, the Court is unable to find that there are any ongoing proceedings whose length would be to examine. 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 25 May 2023.     Attila Teplán   Alena Poláčková   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/registration   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction 26506/22 24/05/2022 Alex KOLOMPÁR 1992 25/03/2019   12/03/2020   11 months and 17 days 1 level of jurisdiction