[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KULCSÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 37778/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
January 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 Kulcsár v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
András
Baka,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Riza
Türmen,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 37778/04) 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 Jenő
Kulcsár (“the applicant”), on 2 August 2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
8 December 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 1949 and lives in Budapest.
- On
6 November 1996 criminal proceedings were instituted against the
applicant.
- On
3 March 1997 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill
of indictment, charging the applicant with having negligently caused
a traffic accident.
- After
having held three hearings and obtained the opinions of two experts,
on 11 October 2001 the Pest Central District Court found the
applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months'
imprisonment, suspended for one year, and a fine.
- On
appeal, on 12 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court acquitted the
applicant, after having obtained the opinion of another expert.
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 ... any criminal charge
against him, 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 6 November 1996 and
ended on 12 February 2004. It thus lasted over seven years and three
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 (see, among
many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France
[GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
- 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 Pélissier and Sassi, 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 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant also
complained of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. The Court
observes that the Regional Court eventually acquitted the applicant;
therefore, he cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of his
Convention rights in this connection. It follows that this complaint
is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the
Convention 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 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 40,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- 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
4,800 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no 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 4,800 (four
thousand eight 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 24 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President
