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 GYULÁNÉ
SZABÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 34344/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8
February 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gyuláné Szabó 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 18 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 34344/07) 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 Gyuláné Szabó (“the
applicant”), on 15 July 2007.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public
Administration and Justice.
- 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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Budapest.
A. First set of proceedings
- On
20 June 1996 the applicant brought an action against several private
individuals before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the
review of a resolution adopted by the community of flatowners of the
house in which she lives.
- Following
several hearings and an interruption of two years due to the death of
two of the respondents, the District Court delivered a judgment on 27
May 2004.
- On
appeal, the Budapest Regional Court adopted a partial judgment
concerning the substitution of a legal statement, while remitting
some claims on 24 June 2005.
- In
the resumed proceedings the first instance court discontinued the
proceedings on 25 March 2008. However, the review bench of the
Supreme Court quashed this decision and instructed the first instance
court to resume the proceedings.
- On
15 December 2009 the District Court gave judgment which was appealed
by the applicant. The proceedings are now pending before the Budapest
Regional Court.
B. Second set of proceedings
- On
4 April 2000 the applicant brought an action against several private
individuals before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the
court to establish the invalidity of yet another resolution of the
flatowners.
- On
5 October 2004 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for
the applicant. On appeal, on 12 October 2005 the Budapest Regional
Court gave judgment. On 17 January 2007 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.
- In
respect of the first set of proceedings, the period to be taken into
consideration began on 20 June 1996 and has not yet ended. It has
already lasted to date over fourteen years and seven months for three
levels of jurisdiction. Of this time, two years corresponded to the
interruption of the case on account of the deaths of two respondents.
This delay cannot be imputed to the State. However, the remaining
period still exceeds twelve years and seven months. As to the
second set of proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration
began on 4 April 2000 and ended on 17 January 2007. It thus
lasted six years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. In
view of such lengthy proceedings, the application 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 also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome
of the second set of proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be
understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result
of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates
that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to
ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the
Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its
function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a
national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights
and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6
of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not
lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it
should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for
regulation by national law and the national courts (see García
Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I).
In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's
submissions do not disclose any appearance that the 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 15,000 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 awards her EUR 9,600 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed 169,053 Hungarian forints (EUR 600) costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Regard being had
to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 in
respect of all costs incurred.
- 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;
3. 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
9,600 (nine thousand six 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 8 February 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
