[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> MATYUS v. HUNGARY - 76928/11 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Fourth Section Committee)) [2016] ECHR 799 (04 October 2016) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2016/799.html Cite as: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:1004JUD007692811, [2016] ECHR 799, CE:ECHR:2016:1004JUD007692811

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF MÁTYUS v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 76928/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

4 October 2016

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Mátyus v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
          Egidijus Kūris,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,

and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 76928/11) against 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 Imre Kálmán Mátyus (“the applicant”), on 9 December 2011.

2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent at the Ministry of Justice.

3.  On 25 June 2015 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.

5.  On 6 January 2000 the applicant brought an action against his parents before the Siófok District Court for dissolution of joint ownership of a real property.

6.  On 21 March 2000 the court suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in other proceedings. Upon termination of the other proceedings on 17 November 2005, the Siófok District Court continued hearing the case.

7.  On 25 August 2006 the court again suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of a preliminary question in another related procedure. Upon termination of these proceedings on 30 August 2007, the Siófok District Court ordered continuation of the case on 17 November 2008.

8.  An agreement was reached between the parties which was acknowledged and incorporated into a judgment by the Siófok District Court on 5 May 2011.

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

9.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

10.  The Government contested that argument.

11.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 6 January 2000 (see paragraph 6 above) and ended on 5 May 2011 (see paragraph 8 above). It thus lasted eleven years and four months for one level of jurisdiction.

12.  In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible.

13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and 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 (see, mutatis mutandis, Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 17, 16 July 2015).

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed some pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to be awarded in line with the Court’s case-law.

15.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant EUR 8,000 under that head.

16.  The applicant made no costs claim. It is therefore not necessary to adopt a decision on the matter.

17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,

1.  Declares the application admissible;

 

2.  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, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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.

 

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Andrea Tamietti                                                            Vincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President