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 KOVACSICS AND AUTÓMOBIL KFT. v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 25454/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
December 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kovacsics and Autómobil Kft. v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto
de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 November 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 25454/06) 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 Róbert Kovacsics (“the first
applicant”) and by a Hungarian business entity, Autómobil
Kft.
(“the second applicant”), on 6 June 2006.
- The
applicants were represented by Ms M. Kovacsics, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public
Administration and Justice.
- On
9 June 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
first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Szentendre. He is the
managing director of the second applicant, a limited
liability company with its seat in Szentendre,
established in 1990.
- On
9 October 2000 a limited liability company brought an action against
the second applicant before the Pest County Regional Court,
requesting the court to establish its ownership on a real estate.
- On
12 June 2001 the plaintiff company submitted further claims and
extended its action to the first applicant and six others.
- On
16 December 2002 the court obtained an expert opinion.
- On
10 October 2005 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of
the first applicant, as the plaintiff withdrew this part of his
claim.
- On
13 December 2005 the court held a hearing. It established that the
discontinuation of the proceedings in respect of the first applicant
had become final in the absence of appeal. The court also delivered
its judgment on this day in respect of the second applicant. In the
absence of appeal by the parties, the judgment became final on 3
February 2006.
THE LAW
- The
applicants 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 in respect of the first
applicant began on 12 June 2001 and ended on 13 December 2005,
therefore lasting four years and six months before one court
instance. As regards the second applicant, the proceedings began on 9
October 2000 and ended on 3 February 2006, lasting thus five
years and three months before one level 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the second applicant claimed
45,933,555 Hungarian forints
(HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage. Moreover, each applicant
claimed HUF 15,000,000
in non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claims. The
Court sees no causal link between the pecuniary damage claimed and
the violation found and therefore rejects this claim. However, it
considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary
damage and awards them each, on an equitable basis, EUR 4,000 under
this head.
- The
first applicant also claimed HUF 29,040,
while the second applicant HUF 2,442,127
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court. They also requested jointly the reimbursement of HUF
2,115,714
for their lawyer’s costs. This amount should correspond to the
billable legal fees incurred in the domestic proceedings and before
the Court. The Government contested these claims. Regard being had to
the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the applicants jointly, the sum of
EUR 1,000 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 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 applicants, within three months,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
4,000 (four thousand euros) each, plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros) jointly, plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicants, 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 applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
