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 ZOLTÁN NÉMETH v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 29436/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June
2011
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Zoltán
Németh v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Dragoljub
Popović,
Giorgio
Malinverni,
András
Sajó,
Guido
Raimondi,
Paulo
Pinto de Albuquerque,
judges,
and Stanley Naismith,
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. 29436/05) 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 Zoltán Németh
(“the applicant”), on 4 August 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms M. Regász, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
- On
14 February 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Szigetszentmárton.
1. Measures taken by the domestic courts
- On
23 June 1998, following the pronouncement of the divorce of the
applicant and his wife, the Budapest IV/XV District Court placed the
applicant’s child – born in July 1993 – with the
mother.
- The
applicant was thereafter not able to see his son due to the mother’s
reluctance to hand over the child.
- The
parents managed to reach a settlement about the father’s access
rights concerning visits until the summer of 1999, which was approved
by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 January 1999. According to
the arrangement, the applicant was allowed to see his son every
second Saturday from 9 am until 6 pm, the day after Easter at the
same hours and during the summer holidays from 7 until 14 July and
from 1 until 14 August.
- Until
26 May 2000 the applicant managed to see his son only rarely, since
the mother refused to comply with the arrangement on most occasions.
From this date onwards he was fully denied access to the child by his
former wife.
2. Measures taken by the local guardianship authorities
- The
applicant repeatedly complained to the local guardianship authority
as from that date and requested it to take effective measures in
order for him to be able to exercise his access rights.
- On
16 June and 18 July 2000 the competent Budapest XV District
Guardianship Authority heard both parents, warned the mother to allow
the applicant to see his son and imposed fines on her. However, these
fines were later cancelled.
- In
January 2001 the case was transferred to the Budapest XIII District
Guardianship Authority. Since a warning issued in July 2001 was to no
avail, it fined the mother 10,000 Hungarian forints (HUF)
(approximately 37 euros (EUR)) on 13 August 2001 and a further
HUF 30,000 (EUR 110) on 18 October 2001.
- Furthermore,
in December 2001 the Budapest XV District Guardianship Authority
discontinued the proceedings, initiated ex officio by the
Budapest XIII District Guardianship Authority, to place the child
under protection (“védelembe vétel”),
finding no reason for it. The child welfare service contacted the
parents in an attempt to find a solution to the situation. It
prepared an environment study at the mother’s home,
establishing that it was ideal for the upbringing of the child, who
was in a loving relationship with his mother. However, it emphasised
the importance of and need for a balanced contact between the child
and his father.
-
As the applicant had had no contact with his child since May 2000, he
lodged complaints with various authorities, but to no avail.
- The
Guardianship Authority then contacted a child upbringing counsellor
(“nevelési tanácsadó”) who
recommended the assistance of a foundation specialised in
facilitating visits. It therefore ordered that the regular visits
scheduled for the period between 16 February and 11 May 2002
be held at the foundation’s premises. It appears that there was
therefore some contact between the applicant and his son in this
period. The applicant’s relationship with his son was examined
and found to be harmonious. Subsequently, the Guardianship Authority
invited both parents to a reconciliatory meeting on 10 June 2002.
This, however, proved to be unsuccessful. The father’s
environment was also examined, and it was established that the
conditions were appropriate to hold the visits there. The authority
recommended a gradual extension of the duration of the contact
between the father and the child.
- The
Guardianship Authority drew up a new access schedule on 16 August
2002 and warned the parents once again to respect these arrangements.
However, the mother continued to deny access to the child.
- Following
the applicant’s repeated complaints to various authorities
about the failure to take adequate action to enforce his rights, on
30 March 2004 the Budapest XI District Guardianship
Authority again warned the mother and took nine separate decisions
concerning the visits not ensured in 2003, imposing a series of fines
on her in the total amount of HUF 260,000 (EUR 975). On 23 June
2004 it initiated the child’s placement under protection.
Subsequently, on 15 September 2004 the Guardianship Authority imposed
a further fine of HUF 100,000 (EUR 375) for the overdue visits from
1999 until 2003.
- The
Guardianship Authority also ordered police assistance twice in 2004.
Afterwards, the applicant managed to see his son until the following
year.
3. Court proceedings to change custody of the child
- Meanwhile,
the applicant initiated an action before the Budapest IV/XIV District
Court in February 2002, seeking a change of custody and requesting
the temporary placement of the child with him as an interim measure.
Since no measures were taken thereafter, he submitted a petition to
the ombudsman, asking for his assistance.
- Eventually,
the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court,
rejected the maintenance of contact with the child via the foundation
mentioned in paragraph 14 above, and dismissed the applicant’s
action on 23 March 2005.
4. Decision of the Ministry
- In
April 2005 the Ministry of Youth, Family and Social Matters quashed
the decisions of the Budapest XI District Guardianship Authority
described in paragraph 16 above, thereby withdrawing the fines
imposed and the order to initiate the child’s placement under
protection, without the possibility to appeal against the decision.
The Ministry established that the decisions of the guardianship
authority had been unlawful and it discontinued the administrative
proceedings concerning the exercise of the applicant’s access
rights prior to 1 March 2004. It nevertheless ordered the
Guardianship Authority to take effective measures to ensure the
applicant’s rights by using the range of measures at its
disposal and not only through the imposition of fines. The Ministry
pointed out, inter alia, that:
“... [t]he fact that the
administration of minor A.N.’s case concerning access got to a
guardianship authority that instantly sanctions the mother for the
overdue visits is good, but other measures would be required as well,
as it seems that the fines do not lead to any result, the goal being
to enable Zoltán Németh to exercise his visiting rights
regarding his son. That is why the guardianship authority should
initiate the placement of the child under protection and consider
intervening in the custody proceedings on the side of the father.
This should have been done already by the previous guardianship
authority. The placement of the child under protection was initiated
once by the Budapest XIII District Guardianship Authority, but the
proceedings were discontinued by the Budapest XV District
Guardianship Authority on the ground that the child’s care may
be provided through basic service. The guardianship authority did not
request the review of the decision despite the fact that the failure
of care in basic service had been fully manifest. ...
Overall, it can
be established that the first-instance guardianship authorities were
not controlling the situation, revoking the fines imposed on formal
grounds. ... The Budapest Guardianship Authority was a “spectator”
to the situation, hindered the enforcement proceedings several times;
on the basis of the appeal even it could have clarified whether the
visits took place, or could have requested the first-instance
guardianship authority to hear the parties, once they made the
mistake of transferring the case file to the court without having
made copies of at least the proceedings pending preceding the
transfer. ...
The second-instance guardianship
authority also omitted [to fulfil its
obligations] in that when the father had not received his son for
months and the competent guardianship authority did not assist the
enforcement, it did not take over the case. It is not an acceptable
solution to settle cases that, instead of solving the professional
problems, the second-instance guardianship authority repeatedly
assigns new acting organ. This practice is unlawful ...
It is indisputable that the first
instance guardianship authority and the second instance guardianship
authority made omissions between 1999 and 2004 by not effectively
promoting the enforcement of the contacts ...”
- The
applicant initiated the review of the Ministry’s decision
before the Chief Prosecutor’s Office. On 25 August 2005 this
Office established that the decision in question had been unlawful
and informed the Ministry about its findings.
- However,
the applicant was not able to exercise his access rights after the
Ministry’s decision had been adopted. He initiated several
enforcement proceedings, following which a few penalties in the sum
of the statutory maximum were imposed on the mother.
- It
appears that the applicant has been unable to have any contact with
his son since then.
5. Criminal proceedings against the mother
- Meanwhile,
as it had become impossible for the applicant to meet his child, he
lodged a criminal complaint against the mother for endangering a
minor, on 10 January 2004. The Pest Central District Court found the
mother guilty and imposed a criminal fine on her on 5 September 2007.
In its reasoning, the court emphasised that:
“[a] child’s moral development can be
endangered not only by so-called immoral conduct ... but also by
depriving the child of the opportunity of healthy moral development.
Thus, by the conduct of the mother, who, having knowledge of the fact
– of which the child also had knowledge – that the father
was to exercise his access rights at a given date, knowingly violated
this right by organising for that date an attractive programme for
the child in the countryside, at a location far from the father ...
The mother involved the child in her conflict with the father,
informed him of the court actions brought against or by him and made
disparaging remarks about the father, thereby exerting emotionally
negative influence on the child living under a common roof with her
and thus being to an increased degree dependent on her.”
However,
it also noted that the applicant:
“... [h]imself did not dispute that on certain
occasions contact with the child became frustrated because of his own
omission.”
- No
further information was provided by the parties as to the development
of the criminal case before the appellate court.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- The
relevant rules concerning the enforcement of contact orders can be
found in Government Decree no. 149/1997 (IX. 10.) on Guardianship
Authorities, Child Protection Procedure and Guardianship Procedure,
which provides as follows:
Section 33
“(1) The development of the child is endangered if
the parent ... wilfully and repeatedly fails to comply with a final
contact order.
(2) If non-compliance with the contact order on the part
of the parent ... is a fault of his/her own, the guardianship
authority shall warn him/her about the consequences of such conduct.
The decision shall contain an injunction ordering the parent ... to
terminate the unlawful conduct and a warning about the legal
consequences of continuing the unlawful conduct.
(3) If the measures provided for under subsection (2)
are of no effect and one year has not elapsed from the receipt of the
warning, the guardianship authority shall apply the rules governing
enforcement of the Act on Public Administration Procedure with the
exceptions set forth in this Decree.
...
(5) If the maintenance of contact entails conflicts, is
continuously frustrated by obstacles, or there are disturbances in
the communication between the parents [in force since 15 February
2003], the guardianship authority may initiate the involvement of the
child welfare service’s contact centre, the ordering of taking
the child into protection, or the institution of the child protection
mediation procedure.
(6) If it is proved that the parent ... brings up the
child by continuously turning him/her against the person entitled to
contact, and despite enforcement measures fails to comply with the
contact order, an action to change custody may be brought before the
court.”
- Moreover,
section 72 of Act no. 31 of 1997 on the Protection of Children and
Child Welfare Administration provides for the possibility temporarily
to place the child with the other parent living apart, if the child’s
emotional development is seriously threatened by his or her family
environment and his or her immediate placement is necessary. Such
serious threat may be established in case of risk of substantial and
irreversible damage to the emotional development of the child.
- Other
measures at the authorities’ disposal are listed in the Act on
Public Administration Procedure, providing for police assistance for
the enforcement of administrative decisions and the imposition of
procedural fines.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained about the continuing lack of access to his son
and about the insufficient measures taken by the public authorities
to enforce his access rights, in violation of his right under Article
8 of the Convention. The Court observes that some of the complaints
raised by the applicant which referred to Article 6 § 1 (see
paragraphs 31 to 35 below) also concerned in substance the issues
raised under Article 8 of the Convention. It deems it appropriate to
examine these arguments in the context of the latter provision (see
Kutzner v. Germany, no. 46544/99, §§ 56 and 57,
ECHR 2002-I; and V.A.M. v. Serbia, no. 39177/05, § 115,
13 March 2007). Article 8 of the Convention, in its
relevant part, provides:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his
... family life ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society ...
for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others.”
- The
Court notes 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.
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The applicant
- The
applicant alleged that the steps taken by the national authorities
had not been effective and had contributed to the current situation.
The domestic authorities continued to tolerate the unacceptable
behaviour of the mother, who tried to do everything possible to
prevent contact and obstruct the development of a loving relationship
between him and his son.
- He
also pointed out that the guardianship authorities had made use of
only two measures at their disposal, namely warning the mother and
the imposition of fines. They therefore had not availed themselves of
the possibility of temporarily placing the child with the applicant,
initiating mediation proceedings or even providing police assistance
to ensure the visits. With the ministerial decision, the authorities
had even annulled the minimal achievements made.
- He
contended that the annulment of the fines by the Ministry would not
have been necessary on the ground that the liability for the failure
of the visits could not be established unambiguously, had the
authorities complied with their obligation to respect the deadlines.
- In
the applicant’s view, the lack of any coercive measure had
legalised the mother’s unlawful conduct. He also argued that
the child upbringing counsellor and the foundation proposed by the
authorities had been of no help, as they did not have any power to
compel the mother to cooperate.
- The
applicant further emphasised that he had taken all possible legal
steps to enforce his visiting rights. He finally highlighted the fact
that his son had not opposed the meetings, which were hindered only
by the mother.
2. The Government
- The
Government submitted that the guardianship authorities had applied
almost all available measures to enforce the applicant’s access
rights. They had warned the mother and imposed penalties on several
occasions, involved a foundation and a child upbringing counsellor
and also forwarded the father’s letter seeking to take the
child into protection to the guardianship authority. They
nevertheless acknowledged that these measures had later been annulled
by the Ministry’s decision in 2005, partially due to the fact
that subsequently, the liability for the failure of visits could not
be established unambiguously.
- They
pointed out that some of the fines imposed on the mother after March
2005 had later been enforced, notwithstanding the fact that the
collection of such penalties limited the resources for the child’s
maintenance and was therefore not frequently applied.
- In
any event, the applicant’s own conduct was open to criticism,
as some visits had not taken place due to his omission. Moreover, on
several occasions he had failed to request the enforcement of fines
or had revoked the motion for their enforcement. They further
highlighted that the use of coercion must be limited to the
absolutely necessary degree. Finally, the Government emphasised that
the applicant had not been completely barred from seeing his son.
- In
sum, the Government maintained that the authorities had done
everything necessary and reasonable in order to comply with their
positive obligation under Article 8 of the Convention.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. General principles
-
The Court notes, firstly, that the mutual enjoyment by parent and
child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element
of “family life” within the meaning of Article 8 of the
Convention (see, among other authorities, Monory v. Romania and
Hungary, no. 71099/01, § 70, 5 April 2005).
- The
Court reiterates that the essential object of Article 8 is to protect
the individual against arbitrary interference by public authorities.
There may however be positive obligations inherent in an effective
“respect” for family life. These obligations may involve
the adoption of measures designed to secure respect for family life
even in the sphere of relations between individuals, including both
the provision of a regulatory framework and the implementation of
specific steps (see, amongst other authorities, Glaser v. the
United Kingdom, no. 32346/96, § 63, 19 September 2000). In
both the negative and positive contexts, regard must be had to the
fair balance which has to be struck between the competing interests
of the individual and the community, and the State’s margin of
appreciation (see, amongst other authorities, Keegan v. Ireland,
26 May 1994, § 49, Series A no. 290).
- Article
8 includes a right for a parent to have measures taken with a view to
his or her being reunited with the child, and an obligation for the
national authorities to take such measures. This also applies to
cases where contact disputes concerning children arise between
parents (see mutatis mutandis, Hokkanen v. Finland, 23
September 1994, § 55, Series A no. 299 A).
- The
Court observes that whilst national authorities must do their utmost
to facilitate such co-operation, any obligation to apply coercion in
this area must be limited, since the interests as well as the rights
and freedoms of all concerned must be taken into account, and more
particularly the best interests of the child and his or her rights
under Article 8 of the Convention. Where contacts with the parent
might appear to threaten those interests or interfere with those
rights, it is for the national authorities to strike a fair balance
between them (see Olsson v. Sweden (no. 2), 27 November
1992, § 90, Series A no. 250).
- What
is decisive is whether the national authorities have taken all
necessary steps to facilitate reunion as can reasonably be demanded
in the special circumstances of each case (see Glaser v. the
United Kingdom, cited above, § 66).
- In
this context, the adequacy of a measure is to be judged by the
swiftness of its implementation, as the passage of time can have
irremediable consequences for relations between the child and the
parent who do not cohabit (see Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania,
no. 31679/96, § 102, ECHR 2000 I).
- Finally,
the Court has held that although coercive measures against the
children are not desirable in this sensitive area, the use of
sanctions must not be ruled out in the event of unlawful behaviour by
the parent with whom the child lives (see Ignaccolo-Zenide,
cited above, § 106).
2. Application of the above principles to the present
case
- Turning
to the particular facts of the case, the Court acknowledges the
efforts made by the national authorities to enforce the applicant’s
visiting rights, and is aware that the difficulties in arranging
access were in large measure due to the animosity between the
parents. Nonetheless, the Court does not accept that responsibility
for the failure of the relevant decisions or measures in actually
bringing about contacts can be attributed to the applicant.
- The
Court considers that the present case is to be distinguished from the
cases of Szegő v. Hungary (no. 21647/93, Commission
decision of 16 January 1996) and Kálló v.
Hungary ((dec.), no. 70558/01, 14 October 2003). In the
former case, an administrator accompanied the applicant to the visits
several times, imposed fines and envisaged further coercive measures
to be taken. Similarly, in the latter case, the authorities took a
variety of measures to secure the applicant’s access rights,
including assistance by officials, granting of requests for interim
measures, issuing of warnings and the imposition of fines of
significant amounts. Furthermore, the children were also reluctant to
meet their fathers, as opposed to the present case where the
relationship between the father and his son was found to be
harmonious (see paragraph 14 above).
- On
the other hand, the Court finds that this case shows certain
similarities with the case of Eberhard and M. v. Slovenia
(nos. 8673/05 and 9733/05, 1 December 2009). In both cases, most
of the fines imposed were never executed or the related decisions
were ultimately quashed on procedural grounds.
- It
is true that the authorities took some measures to enforce the
applicant’s visiting rights, including warnings, the assistance
of a child upbringing counsellor, the organisation of a
reconciliatory meeting, the conduct of criminal proceedings against
the mother and the imposition of fines. However, these measures
proved to be ineffective or not sufficiently prompt, resulting in a
situation where the father was not able to see his son for several
years, between May 2000 and February 2002 and from May 2002
until March 2004.
- The
Court would reiterate that in general, the national authorities are
better positioned to consider the procedure to follow in such
situations, and the Court, as a rule, will find a violation of
Article 8 only where the inefficiency of the measures applied is
manifest. However, the State authorities will fail to fulfil their
obligations where the national authorities themselves admit that the
procedures applied were not satisfactory and they failed to remedy
such shortcomings, or where they contributed to the non-execution of
otherwise appropriate measures. The Court is not satisfied that the
authorities made efficient use of the arsenal of measures at their
disposal despite the Ministry’s express instructions concerning
the steps to be taken (see paragraph 20 above). It notes in
particular that they did not place the child with the applicant
temporarily, nor did they initiate mediation proceedings or intervene
in the proceedings which concerned the change of the child’s
custody (see paragraphs 18 and 19 above); moreover, the authorities
revoked the fines which were, in principle, capable of contributing
to the enforcement of the applicant’s visitation rights (see
paragraphs 20 and 21 above) and, apart from two occasions, they did
not provide police assistance to enforce the visits.
- The
Court is mindful of the fact that coercion in this field must be
limited. However, the only period in which the exercise of the
applicant’s rights seems to have been undisturbed ran from
March 2004 until April 2005, when the authorities twice provided
police assistance for the visits.
- The
Court further notes that only in September 2004 did the competent
guardianship authority decide on the sanctions for the failure of
certain visits between 1999 and 2003, therefore breaching their
obligation to act sufficiently promptly.
- The
only time when the situation appears to have improved was when the
case was transferred to the Budapest XI District Guardianship
Authority in 2004. It imposed several fines, initiated the placement
of the child under protection and provided assistance for the visits.
However, the Ministry of Youth, Family and Social Matters quashed
these measures in April 2005 (see paragraph 20 above),
perpetuating a situation where the applicant is unable to have
contact with his child.
- From
the foregoing the Court cannot but conclude, bearing in mind the
interests involved, that the competent authorities did not act
sufficiently promptly or make reasonable efforts to facilitate
reunion. On the contrary, the inaction of the authorities placed the
burden on the applicant to have constant recourse to a succession of
time-consuming and ultimately ineffective remedies to enforce his
rights. Over the years, they tolerated the mother’s unlawful
actions which they were under a duty to prevent.
- Accordingly,
the Court concludes that, notwithstanding the margin of appreciation
enjoyed by the competent authorities, the non-enforcement of the
applicant’s right of access constituted a breach of his right
to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant contended, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that no
effective remedy was available against the Ministry’s decision
brought in April 2005.
- The
Court observes, however, that the applicant availed himself of a
complaint to the Chief Prosecutor’s Office, which established
the unlawfulness of the decision in question. The Court therefore
considers that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to
Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- The
applicant also claimed that the authorities’ attitude towards
him and the decisions they had taken amounted to discrimination
against him based on his gender, in violation of the prohibition of
discrimination enshrined in Article 14 of the Convention.
- The
Court finds that, insofar as this complaint may be considered as a
separate issue from the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention,
there is nothing in the case file indicating discrimination against
the applicant based on his gender. The Court therefore concludes that
this complaint is likewise manifestly ill-founded within the meaning
of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §
4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested this claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have suffered distress as a
result of the non-enforcement of his access rights and awards him, on
an equitable basis, EUR 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 5,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court, without providing any
particulars of this claim.
- The
Government observed that the applicant’s claim was not
supported by any evidence and requested the Court to reject it.
- According
to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case the applicant did not
produce any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The Court
therefore rejects it.
C. Default interest
- 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 Article 8
admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
8 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 20,000
(twenty thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any
tax that may be chargeable, 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.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
