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 KATONA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 20075/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
March 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 Katona 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 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20075/05) 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, Ms Marianna Katona (“the applicant”),
on 23 May 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mrs Mária Szűcsné
Durgó, a lawyer practising in Zalaegerszeg. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L.
Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
24 September 2008 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Zalaegerszeg.
- On
12 December 1996 the applicant filed for divorce.
- After
three remittals to the first instance court, the proceedings ended on
4 October 2005 when the Supreme Court rejected the parties' petition
for review, after the lower instances had pronounced the parties'
divorce, granted the custody of the couple's son to the applicant.
The father's right of access was also regulated and the matrimonial
property divided, allowing the applicant and the son to stay in the
couple's flat against compensation payable to the ex-husband for his
share of the flat. The proceedings thus lasted almost eight years and
ten months for three levels of jurisdiction.
- The
first-instance decision adopted after the last remittal allowed the
customary 10% deduction from the value of the flat on account of the
mother's statutory obligation to lodge her minor son in it, which
would have reduced her debt to the ex-husband by 413,650 Hungarian
forints
(HUF). However, the second-instance court annulled this advantage
because it miscalculated the son's age, holding that he was no longer
a minor. The Supreme Court rejected the applicant's objection to the
latter ruling as the son in the meantime had become of age.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that
argument.
- The
Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration
lasted almost eight years and ten months for three levels of
jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint
must be declared admissible.
- 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 e.g. Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96,
§ 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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.
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about the unfairness of the proceedings. Moreover, she relied on
Articles 3 and 5 of Protocol No. 7, without developing this complaint
any further. However, an examination of the case file does not
disclose any evidence whatsoever of a violation of these provisions.
In particular, there are no elements to suggest that the courts
lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed
HUF 10,431,163
in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 2.5 million
in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these
claims.
- The
Court accepts the causal link between the violation found and the
pecuniary damage alleged in the amount of HUF 413,650, being the
sum which the Supreme Court did not deduct from the applicant's debt
due to the lapse of time (see paragraph 7 above). It therefore awards
the applicant the equivalent of this sum in euros – EUR 1,560 –
but rejects the remainder of her claim for pecuniary damage.
Moreover, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR
3,200 under that head.
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 570,000
for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This figure,
which includes VAT at 20%, corresponds to her lawyer's fees (HUF
300,000
as stipulated in a contract submitted), the costs of translations
(HUF 120,000
as per invoice) and an expert fee (HUF 150,000
as per invoice). 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 documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
finds it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 under
this head.
- 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 in accordance with
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 1,560 (one thousand five hundred and sixty
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus
any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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 March 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
