CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 13 November 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 48322/12 György GAZSÓ against Hungary lodged on 24 July 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr György Gazsó, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Telki. He is represented before the Court by Mr   D.   Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Between 25 February 2002 and 18 May 2005, litigation was in progress between the applicant and his former employer. The latter was eventually obliged to re-employ the applicant. However, the proposed position was not acceptable to the applicant, and new litigation started on 14 February 2006. On 18 November 2008 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action (32.M.220/2006/54). On appeal, on 9 July 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and found for the applicant (55.Mf.630.135/2009/11). The respondent pursued a petition for review before the Kúria . On 29   February 2012 this court reversed the appeal judgment and found for the respondent (Mfv.II.11.199/2010/4.; service: 25 May 2012). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 about the undue length of the case and the absence of an effective remedy against this protraction.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the labour-law proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   3.     Does the present case lend itself to the pilot judgment procedure (Article   46 § 1)? In particular, do the facts of the application reveal the existence of a structural or systemic problem or other similar dysfunction which has given rise or may give rise to similar applications (see Rule   61 §   1 of the Rules of Court)?