[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF TÓTH v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 22657/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
October 2007
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 Tóth v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr M.
Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A.
Mularoni,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S.
Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 22657/04) 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, Ms Lászlóné
Tóth (“the applicant”), on 21 April 2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
2 October 2006 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Debrecen.
- On
4 March 1996 the applicant filed an action with the Debrecen District
Court claiming compensation from the co-owners of a block of flats on
whose plot of land she had been renting a commercial kiosk, because
they had cut her establishment off from the water and electricity
supply.
- On
19 November 1996 District Court adopted a partial decision. On
appeal, on 21 May 1997 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court
quashed this decision and discontinued that part of the case.
- Subsequently,
in the period up to 3 June 2004, the District Court held hearings at
regular intervals; however, the proceedings were repeatedly
interrupted on account of the deaths and succession formalities of
certain respondents. The court also obtained the opinion of an
expert.
- On
21 July 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for
bias, lodged because of the extreme protraction of the proceedings.
The Regional Court observed that, procedurally, the case was very
complicated, because there were more than 120 parties. Moreover,
because of succession formalities in the meantime and unsuccessful
attempts to serve the documents in the case on the parties, the
chance of holding a hearing in due and proper form had been very
slim, and the proceedings had been interrupted on account of the
death of one of the respondents.
- A
first-instance decision was adopted on 15 February 2007. According to
the information provided by the parties and the elements available in
the case file to date, the case, currently involving 137 respondents,
has not yet ended.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 of the Convention. She also relied on Article 13 of the
Convention.
The
Court considers that the complaint falls to be examined under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested the applicant's argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 4 March 1996 and
apparently has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over eleven years
and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction, at the date of
adoption of the present judgment.
A. Admissibility
- 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.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- 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 Frydlender, cited above).
- 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 overall length of the proceedings has
been excessive, even taking into account the number of respondents
and the succession formalities, and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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 12 million Hungarian forints
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- Ruling
on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 9,600.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim under this head.
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 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
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 9,600 (nine
thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(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 23 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
