[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KOLLÁTH v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 15509/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
November 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 Kolláth v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr R.
Türmen,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs D.
Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and
Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 15509/05) 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 József
Kolláth (“the applicant”), on 20 March 2005.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
3 April 2007 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 1952 and lives in Dunakeszi.
- In
the context of a supply contract, on 23 December 1994 Kiss és
Kolláth Bt. – a limited partnership managed by the
applicant, of which he is also a shareholder – filed an action
against another company claiming a certain amount of money.
- After
seven hearings, on 19 September 1997 the Pest Central District Court
dismissed the applicant's claim. The second-instance court quashed
this decision on 11 February 1999.
- In
the resumed proceedings, on 26 March 2003 the District Court held
several hearings, obtained the opinion of an expert and again
dismissed the applicant's claims.
- On
appeal, on 23 September 2004 the Budapest Regional Court reversed
this decision and awarded the applicant 4.4 million Hungarian forints
(HUF), plus accrued statutory interest. The court dismissed the
applicant's other claims for interest. It relied on documentary
evidence, the opinion of the expert and the testimony of witnesses.
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 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 23 December 1994 and
ended on 23 September 2004. It thus lasted nine years and nine months
for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint 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 finds 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.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Without
relying on any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant
also complained about the unfairness and the outcome of the
proceedings.
- In
so far as the applicant's complaint may be understood to concern the
assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before
the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article
19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the
engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention.
In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or
law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as
they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the
Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any
rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be
assessed. These are primarily matters for regulation by national law
and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain
[GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I).
- In
the present case, the Court considers that there is nothing in the
case file disclosing any appearance that the courts lacked
impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. It
follows that this part of the application is 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, in general terms, pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damage. He submitted that, because of the protraction of the
proceedings, he suffered a loss of 10,000 euros (EUR) in legal fees
payable to two law firms and an indeterminate amount of money in
connection with various expenses. Moreover, in order to maintain the
solvency of his enterprise, he had to take out a loan, the interest
on which amounted to HUF 1 million.
Finally, due to the ongoing litigation, he also lost a business
opportunity with a potential profit of 25,000 US dollars.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR
6,400 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no separate costs claim.
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 the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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 6,400 (six
thousand four 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 27 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
