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 KÖTELES v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 9271/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
March 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Köteles v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
President,
Dragoljub Popović,
András
Sajó, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 22 February 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 9271/07) 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, Mr Géza Köteles
(“the
applicant”), on 20 February 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Sik, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
- On
8 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 1936 and lives in Budapest.
- On
22 July 1999 the applicant suffered a road accident while driving,
due to a burst tyre, and was seriously injured. He subsequently
brought an action in compensation against the tire company and its
retailer before the Pest Central District Court on 10 February
2000.
- In
its interlocutory judgment of 6 April 2004 the District Court
established the respondents' liability for damages, which was finally
upheld by the review bench of the Supreme Court on 27 October 2005.
- After
obtaining the opinion of two forensic experts, the Pest Central
District Court awarded the applicant compensation on 3 October 2006.
In the absence of an appeal, the judgment became final on
28 November 2006. The judgment was rectified for a clerical
error on 9 January 2007.
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 this
view.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 10 February 2000 and
ended on 9 January 2007. It thus lasted six years and eleven months
for three levels of jurisdiction.
- 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 applicant claimed 10,000 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 him EUR 3,100 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,500 for the 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 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 applicant, within three months,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
3,100 (three thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) 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 15 March 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ireneu Cabral Barreto
Deputy
Registrar President
