[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF SÁNDOR v. HUNGARY
(Application
nos. 9077/05 and 10457/05 (joined))
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17
July 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 Sándor 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,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in two applications
(nos. 9077/05 and 10457/05) 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 two Hungarian nationals,
Mr László
Levente Sándor and Mrs Lászlóné Sándor
(“the applicants”), on 4 February 2005 and 11 February
2005, respectively.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr A. Cech, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
14 December 2007 the
Court decided to give notice of the applications to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the applications at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1928 and 1936 respectively
and live in Budapest.
- On
1 March 1995 the liquidation of the South Pest General Consumer and
Marketing Co-operative (“ÁFÉSZ”) was
ordered by the Budapest Regional Court. Each applicant was creditor
in these proceedings, holding individual claims.
- In
May 1996 the liquidator prepared the interim balance sheet (közbenső
mérleg) that was sent to the applicants. On 31 May 1996
the applicants raised an objection concerning the interim balance
sheet. In January 1997 the Budapest Regional Court suspended the
review of the balance sheet until a decision by the Supreme Court. In
April 1997 the Regional Court again suspended its proceedings
concerning the applicants' objection. The applicants allege that the
Regional Court has never decided upon their objection.
- In
the resumed proceedings, on 28 July 1999 the Budapest Regional Court
accepted the closing balance sheet prepared by the liquidator. The
applicants appealed against this decision. On 12 July 2004 the
Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court's decision and remitted the
case to the first-instance.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the applicants raised an objection against
an action of the liquidator, namely, the sale of real estate
belonging to the debtor. In May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court
dismissed the objection. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal
upheld the first-instance decision in September 2006. In May 2007 the
review bench of the Supreme Court upheld the final decision.
- In
November 2007 the Regional Court ordered the bailiff to pay the
applicants 3,835,643 Hungarian forints (approximately 15,577 euros)
for their justified creditors' claim. The entire sum was paid to
them.
- According
to the information in the case file, the liquidation procedure is
still pending.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF APPLICATIONS
- The
Court notes that the subject matter of application nos.
9077/05 and 10457/05 is identical, since the
applicants, husband and wife, are parties to the same domestic
proceedings. It is therefore appropriate to join the cases, in
application of Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the liquidation 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 1 March 1995.
According to the information provided by the parties and the elements
available in the case file, it has not yet ended. It has thus lasted
over thirteen years and four months for three 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants 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.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants further complained that the length of the proceedings had
infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions,
as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides as
follow:
"Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way
impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems
necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the
general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions or penalties."
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to that under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention which has already been examined above and must
therefore, likewise, be declared admissible. However, having regard
to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 19 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately
whether there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of
19 February
1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
IV. 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
applicants, jointly, claimed 82,781 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested this claim.
- The
Court does not discern any casual link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damages. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards each
applicant EUR 11,200.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 1,200 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. They submitted that their claim is based on an
agreement concluded with their lawyer. They filed an itemised
statement of the hours billable by their lawyer, amounting to twelve
hours of work at an hourly rate of EUR 100 (two hours of client
consultations; four hours for studying the file; two hours for
case-law research; four hours for drafting submissions).
- 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
finds it reasonable to award the sum claimed in its entirety under
this head, jointly to the applicants.
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
- Decides to join the applications;
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine
separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, 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)
to each of the applicants EUR 11,200 (eleven thousand two hundred
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
to the applicants jointly EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros)
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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
