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 GÉZÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 20743/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
July 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gézáné Nagy v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20743/07) 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, Mrs Gézáné Nagy (“the
applicant”), on 4 May 2007.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Public
Administration.
- On
9 February 2010 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14,
the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
- On
19 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest
XVIII/XIX District Court against several respondents, seeking
ownership of a real estate.
- On
14 September 1995 a hearing was held. The court appointed an expert
graphologist who filed an opinion on 12 March 1996. On 18 April 1996,
30 April 1997 and 21 January 1998 further hearings took place.
- On
15 September 1998 the court transferred the case to the Budapest
Regional Court for reasons of competence. On 2 February 1999 the
Budapest Regional Court established its lack of competence. On 6
October 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Budapest XVIII/XIX
District Court to hear the case.
- On
25 May 2000, 9 January, 20 February, 18 April, 12 September 2001 and
18 January 2002 hearings were held. On 17 May 2002 a real estate
expert was appointed whose opinion was filed on 9 September 2002. On
10 December 2002 the expert was invited to complete his opinion. The
opinion was re-submitted on 17 February 2003.
- On
20 March 2003 and 14 January 2004 hearings took place. On 20 February
2004 the court gave judgment.
- On
appeal, on 24 February, 2 June and 15 September 2005 the Budapest
Regional Court, sitting as a second instance court, heard the
parties. On the latter date, it suspended the proceedings pending the
termination of a closely related land register procedure.
- After
the resumption of the case, on 19 December 2006 the Budapest Regional
Court gave judgment. On 19 June 2009 the review bench of the Supreme
Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
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
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 June 1995 and ended
on 19 June 2009. It thus lasted fourteen years 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, among many other authorities, 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 considers 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 further complained that the length of the proceedings
complained of had infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of
her possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. Having regard to
its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 14 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this
case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see
Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A
no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 9,500 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested
the claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
some non-pecuniary damage and that it should award the full sum
claimed.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government contested
the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and
according to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR
500 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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine the
applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant within three months the
following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
9,500 (nine thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred 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 27 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
