5.  The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Velké Dravce, Slovakia. 6.  The applicant and his former spouse, also of Slovakian nationality, found employment in Hungary and settled there in 2004. They married in Slovakia in 2005. Their child, also a Slovakian citizen, was born in Hatvan, Hungary, in 2007. 7.  As their marriage deteriorated, the wife lodged a divorce action and a custody claim with the Hungarian Hatvan District Court on 18 June 2008. 8.  The applicant filed an objection contesting the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts. The District Court held a hearing and dismissed the case, accepting the applicant’s argument. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had filed a divorce action before the Slovakian Rimavská Sobota District Court. 9.  On appeal, the Hungarian Heves County Regional Court quashed the first-instance decision on 19 February 2009, for further circumstances to be clarified, namely the exact date of filing the action before the Slovakian court. The Regional Court noted that the law applicable by the Hatvan District Court was the Slovakian one. 10.  In the resumed proceedings, the Hatvan District Court ascertained that the action before the Slovakian court had been filed on 24 June 2008, that is, six days later than the one before the Hungarian court. During the procedure the court obtained the necessary translation of the Slovakian law.
The District Court rejected the applicant’s jurisdictional objection on 10 March 2010, holding that the Slovakian case had been pre-empted by the Hungarian one. On his appeal, the second-instance court upheld the decision on 16 June 2010. 11.  Meanwhile, the applicant filed a complaint about the protraction of the proceedings. The objection was dismissed by the Heves County Regional Court on 18 May 2010. The court held that there was no unreasonable delay or omission to be observed during the proceedings. 12.  The first hearing on the merits was held by the Hatvan District Court on 5 October 2010 in the absence of the applicant. Although two more hearings were held on 8 February and 28 April 2011, the applicant, properly summoned, failed to appear. 13.  Meanwhile, the applicant had brought several actions against his former spouse before the Slovakian Rimavská Sobota District Court. The applicant’s contact with his child was also regulated with provisional measure by that court on 22 December 2008. 14.  On 28 April 2011 the Hatvan District Court dissolved the applicant’s marriage and ordered him to pay child maintenance. 15.  The applicant appealed but the Hungarian Eger High Court upheld the first-instance decision on 15 February 2012. This decision was served on the applicant on 15 June 2012. 16.  The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 14 May 2013 the Kúria rejected the request since it was excluded by law in such cases.