4.  The applicant lives in Salgótarján. 5.  On 29 September 1999 the applicant’s employer brought an action against him, alleging a deficient inventory. 6.  On 15 May 2001 the Salgótarján Labour Court found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings. 7.  On 25 October 2001 the Nógrád County Regional Court upheld this decision. On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed these judgments and remitted the case to the Labour Court. 8.  In the resumed proceedings, on 27 January 2005 the Labour Court again found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts. 9.  On 26 May 2005 the Regional Court amended this decision. 10.  On 15 September 2005 the applicant’s petition for review reached the Supreme Court. Although section 273(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure prescribes a 60-day time-limit for the preliminary examination of a petition, it only took place on 12 April 2006. On that date a single judge decided, in a 6-page decision which was reasoned in detail, that the applicant’s petition did not disclose a breach of the relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the interpretation of expert opinions. Although the decision was given in a procedure nominally as to the admissibility of the petition, in fact it dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case. The Supreme Court’s order was served on him on 29 May 2006. 11.  The applicant filed a complaint alleging that, because of the non-observance of the 60-day time-limit, the single judge had no longer been entitled to reject his petition and a hearing should have been held. 12.  On 6 July 2006 the Head of the Supreme Court’s Labour-Law Collegium rejected the applicant’s complaint. She explained that the delay was due to the Supreme Court’s backlog of cases and that section 273(4) could not be interpreted to the effect that the delay had entailed an obligation on the Supreme Court’s part to hold a hearing.