BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF GERGELY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 23364/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
31
October 2006
This judgment will
become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2
of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gergely v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E.
Fura-Sandström,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović,
judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 23364/03) against the
Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Hungarian national, Mr Tibor
Gergely (“the applicant”), on 6 June 2003.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr G. Bordács, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
6 September 2005 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings to
the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it
decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at
the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
- On
28 October 1991 the applicant brought an action in the Budapest
Regional Court seeking the annulment of a contract and the ownership
of a real-estate. Between 13 February 1992 and 31 May 1994 the court
held eight hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
- On
10 November 1994 the proceedings were interrupted on account of the
death of one of the respondents. The successors were not identified
until 24 February 1999. The court informed the parties of this fact
on 9 November 1999, and the proceedings resumed on 4 January
2000.
- Four
further hearings took place between 30 May 2000 and 9 March 2001.
- On
8 June 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's action.
- On
21 June 2001 the applicant appealed. Following repeated warnings from
the appellate court, his appeal was only lodged in due and proper
form on 3 December 2001.
- On
11 December 2002 the Supreme Court, sitting as a second-instance
court, dismissed the applicant's appeal.
- On
7 October 2003 the Supreme Court rejected as inadmissible the
applicant's petition for review, without an examination of the
merits.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration only began on 5 November 1992,
when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition
under the Convention took effect. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the state of proceedings at the point. The Court observes
that the case had already been pending for over a year by that date.
The
period in question ended on 7 October 2003. It thus lasted ten years
and eleven months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and that it is
not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared
admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
application (see Frydlender, cited above).
- The
Court notes that the delay between 10 November 1994 and 24 February
1999 (some four years, three months and two weeks), during which time
the successors of the deceased respondent were not identified, cannot
be imputed to the Government; and that the delay between 21 June and
3 December 2001 (some five months and two weeks) must be attributed
to the applicant. However, having examined all the material submitted
to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that, as regards the remaining delay of six years and two
months, in the instant case the length of the proceedings was
nevertheless excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time”
requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 100 million Hungarian forints
(HUF) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
1,500 euros (EUR) under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 7.1 million
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of
his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these
have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to
quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the global sum of EUR 1,500 to cover the various
costs.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,500 (one
thousand five hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and
EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) in respect of costs and
expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the
respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 31 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
Registrar President
