[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF TEMESVÁRI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 12935/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
October 2008
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 Temesvári v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 12935/05) 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, Mrs Zoltánné
Temesvári
(“the applicant”), on 25 March 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr T. Gaudi-Nagy, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
9 January 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 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budaörs.
- On
8 May 1998 the applicants' neighbours brought an action against her
and other respondents, claiming adverse possession of a right of way
on their land.
- Between
1 May 1999 and 5 February 2001 the proceedings were interrupted
because of the death of a plaintiff.
- Between
18 May 2001 and 16 March 2005 the Budaörs District Court held
several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
- Since
21 April 2005 the proceedings have been interrupted because one of
the respondents died, his successor did not join the proceedings
voluntarily and the plaintiffs failed to apply for the successor to
be made a party to the proceedings.
- According
to the information in the case file, the case is still pending before
the first-instance court.
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 ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 8 May 1998 and
apparently has not yet ended, according to the information in the
case file as of the day of adoption of the present judgment. It has
thus lasted over ten years and four months to date. However, in the
Court's view, the periods from 1 May 1999 until 5 February 2001 and
from 21 April 2005 onwards (altogether over five years and two
months), during which the case had to be interrupted because of the
deaths of certain parties, should be deducted from the overall
length, given the other parties' passivity concerning this measure.
The relevant period is therefore five years and two months for one
level 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
- The
applicant also complained that the proceedings were unfair. She
relied on Articles 8, 13 and 17 of the Convention, Article 1 of
Protocol
No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7.
- The
Court observes that the proceedings are still pending and considers
that this complaint must be rejected as premature, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 1 and 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 11,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her
EUR 4,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,640 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. This sum corresponds to the fee of her lawyer,
whose work amounted to 25.4 hours and was charged at an hourly rate
of EUR 100, and to the costs of translation amounting to EUR 100.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- 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, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,200, covering costs
under all heads.
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 4,000 (four
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros)
in respect of costs and expenses, 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
amounts 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 7 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy
Registrar President
