[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF STERBEK v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 9286/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
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 Sterbek 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 Mrs Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 July 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 9286/04) 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, Mr János
Sterbek (“the applicant”), on 20 January 2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
12 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 1950 and lives in Táborfalva, Hungary.
- In
1992 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his
former employer. On 12 April 1995 the Budapest Regional Court found
for him. On 18 July 1995 enforcement proceedings were instituted.
Since the respondent's liquidation had been initiated on 14 December
1995, the applicant's claims were channelled into those proceedings
in April 1996.
- On
13 October 1997 the applicant brought an official liability action
against the Budapest Regional Court, seeking compensation for the
damage which the respondent court had allegedly caused by not having
proceeded with the enforcement of the award due to the applicant (see
paragraph 5 above) adequately or in good time. On 3 March 1998 the
Pest County Regional Court was appointed to hear the case.
- After
two hearings, this procedure was suspended on 27 April 1999, pending
the termination of the liquidation.
- The
liquidation was accomplished on 11 March 2002. The sum due to the
applicant could not be recovered for want of assets.
- The
applicant requested that the official liability proceedings be
resumed only on 10 June 2004; he had not been able to do so earlier
because he had suffered a serious occupational accident.
- After
a hearing on 22 November 2004, on 9 March 2005 the Pest County
Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claims. He did not appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the official liability
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 13 October 1997 and
ended on 9 March 2005. It thus lasted almost seven years and five
months. It is to be observed that the applicant requested the
resumption of the suspended proceedings only after two years and
three months (see paragraphs 8-9 above); however, in the Court's
view, this delay – whilst explained by the applicant's ailment
– cannot be imputed to the State and must be deducted from the
overall length. The relevant period is therefore approximately five
years and two months for one level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that this complaint should be declared
inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the
applicant did not appeal against the decision of 9 March 2005.
- The
Court reiterates that, in respect of the length of civil proceedings,
a remedy can normally be considered effective only if it provides
direct and speedy protection of the rights guaranteed by
Article 6 § 1 (cf. mutatis mutandis Erdős
v. Hungary (dec.), no. 38937/97,
3 May 2001), notably by
accelerating the proceedings. However, it considers that an appeal on
the merits, to be filed against the first-instance court judgment,
was not capable of speeding up the procedure and had thus no bearing
on the protraction of the case. It follows that the applicant's
complaint cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
- Moreover,
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. In particular, the Court observes that, until
the finalisation of the liquidation, the proceedings were suspended
for almost three years (see paragraphs 7-8 above), resulting in a
substantial period of inactivity. However, in the Court's view, this
measure was not entirely reasonable given that the impugned
proceedings concerned an issue of official liability which was
related to an alleged judicial wrongdoing that had occurred well
before the liquidation procedure and that was legally separate from
the liquidation. In these circumstances, the Court is not convinced
that the liquidation was a condition precedent for finding or not
finding a breach of law on the part of the respondent court,
necessitating the suspension of the case.
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 of the length of the liquidation procedure and of the
outcome of both cases.
- As
regards the length and the outcome of the liquidation case, the Court
observes that it ended on 11 March 2002, whereas the application was
only introduced on 20 January 2004,
i.e. more than six months later. Moreover, concerning the outcome of
the official liability case, the Court notes that the applicant did
not exhaust domestic remedies in that he did not appeal against the
judgment of 9 March 2005. It follows that these complaints must be
rejected 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 5.5 million Hungarian forints
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 him
EUR 4,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim in this respect.
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, to be converted into the national currency of
the respondent State 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 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 22 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
