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 EÖSÖLY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 32069/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
February 2009
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 Eösöly v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 February 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 32069/05) 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 József
Eösöly (“the applicant”), on 30 August 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
25 June 2008 the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under
the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided
to examine the merits of the application as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hévízgyörk.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
- In
1996 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his
former employer before the Pest County Labour Court. In March 2003
the Labour Court partly found for him. The applicant appealed. On
3 November 2004 the Pest County Regional Court upheld the
first-instance decision. The courts relied on documentary evidence,
the opinion of an auditor and testimonies of witnesses and the
parties.
- The
applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 9
February 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition.
This decision was served on him on 25 April 2005.
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, laid
down in 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 began in 1996 and ended on 9
February 2005. It thus lasted nine years for three levels of
jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that the application had been submitted outside the
six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the
Convention. They observed that the final decision in the case was
given by the Regional Court on 3 November 2004. However, the
application was only lodged on 30 August 2005. The applicant's
petition for a review by the Supreme Court could not, in their view,
be regarded as an effective remedy in the circumstances, since it did
not meet the statutory requirements and was rejected at the
admissibility stage. It did not, therefore, interrupt the running of
the six-month time-limit.
- The
applicant contested this view. He maintained that the Supreme Court,
although it had dismissed his petition at the admissibility stage,
had in fact dealt with the merits of the case.
- The
Court observes that the Supreme Court did not reject the applicant's
petition as being wholly futile; instead, it adopted a reasoned
decision in the matter. In these circumstances, it is satisfied that
the order delivered on 9 February 2005 (and served on the applicant
on 25 April 2005) constituted the final domestic decision
in the case and that the six-month rule has been complied with (see
Tsomtsos and Others v. Greece, 15 November 1996, § 32,
Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 V and Csánics
v. Hungary, no. 12188/06, § 24, 16 December 2008). Moreover,
the Court considers that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It
further notes 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
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument
capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the
present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject,
the Court finds that the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
Court observes that the applicant also complained under Articles 6
and 13 of the Convention about the outcome and the unfairness of the
proceedings. However, the Court considers that these complaints are
essentially of a fourth-instance nature: there is no indication in
the case file that the domestic courts lacked impartiality or that
the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded,
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected
pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 16,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 4,800.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,440 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. He filed an itemised statement of the hours
billable by his lawyer. According to his statement, this figure
corresponded to twelve hours of work (consultation with client, three
hours; studying the file, two hours; preparation of submissions,
seven hours) spent by his lawyer on the case charged at an hourly
rate of EUR 100 plus VAT.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of 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 above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the
sum of EUR 1,440 for the proceedings before the Court.
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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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
according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,440 (one thousand four hundred and forty euros)
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of
costs and expenses;
(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 24 February 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
