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 KELEMEN v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 16033/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kelemen 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 24 May 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16033/06) 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 Gábor Kelemen (“the applicant”),
on 11 April 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Lőrincz, a lawyer practising
in Nyíregyháza. The Hungarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl,
Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
- On
9 November 2009 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 1959 and lives in Nyíregyháza.
- In
June 1989 the applicant initiated an action against the members of a
building society before the Nyíregyháza District Court,
requesting the court to quash the respondent society’s decision
excluding him from the building society.
- Following
several remittals and suspensions, the proceedings finally continued
and were joined with another case initiated by a water management
association and the respondents in the earlier case.
- On
27 October 2004 the Nyíregyháza District Court
delivered its decision which was amended in part on appeal by the
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 7 April 2005.
- On
13 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s
petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of
the case, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been
unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case.
This decision was served on 29 November 2005.
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, arguing in particular that the application was introduced
out of time, the final domestic decision being the one given by the
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 7 April 2005,
whereas the application was introduced only on 11 April 2006,
i.e. more than six months later.
10. The
Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination
of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into
account all instances which could have had an influence on the
outcome of the case (see Maria de Lurdes Rosa Marques and Others
v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this
connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, served
on the applicant on 29 November 2005, and which dealt with the merits
of the applicant’s claim in a reasoned decision, constituted
the final domestic decision in the case (see Béla Szabó
v. Hungary, no. 37470/06, § 16, 9 December 2008).
The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected.
Moreover, the Court considers that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began
only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right
of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court notes
that the case had been pending for three years and four months on
that date. The period in question ended on 13 October 2005. It thus
lasted altogether sixteen years and three months before three levels
of jurisdiction, out of which twelve years and eleven months
following ratification of the Convention by Hungary.
- 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 7,284 euros
(EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 in respect
of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims.
Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that
the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and
awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 11,200 under this head.
- The
applicant has not submitted a costs claim.
- 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,
EUR 11,200 (eleven thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may
be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of
settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement,
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 14 June 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
