[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF MIKÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 40360/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 May
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 Mikó v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Antonella
Mularoni,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 May 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 40360/04) 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 Istvánné
Mikó
(“the applicant”), on 7 September 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms Cs. Lakatos, a lawyer practising in
Miskolc. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
8 February 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
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Putnok.
- On
31 August 1998 the applicant filed an action in damages with the Ózd
District Court. In the context of unsuccessful ophthalmologic
surgery, she claimed compensation from a teaching hospital for
medical malpractice.
- On
7 October 1998 the case was transferred to the competent Pest Central
District Court. After having held several hearings and obtained two
expert opinions, this court found in part for the applicant on
31 January 2003.
- On
14 April 2004 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision.
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 31 August 1998 and
ended on 14 April 2004. It thus lasted over five years and seven
months for two levels of jurisdiction.
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 notes 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 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. 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 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have some sustained
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her
EUR 3,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,000 for the legal fee incurred before
the Court. According to her statement, this corresponds to 12.5 hours
of work (studying the file /5 hours/ and preparation of submissions
/7.5 hours/) spent by her lawyer on the case, charged at an
hourly rate of
EUR 80.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- 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 that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
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;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to
pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the
judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into
Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,200 (three thousand two
hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of
costs and expenses;
(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 27 May 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
