BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF MÁRIA MENYHÁRT v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 33552/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
October 2009
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 Mária Menyhárt v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 33552/05) 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, Ms Mária
Menyhárt (“the applicant”), on 12 September 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms E. Gasztonyi, a lawyer practising in
Ajka. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and
Law Enforcement.
- On
30 March 2009 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 1942 and lives in Ajka.
- In
November 1993 the applicant's husband brought an action against her
before the Ajka District Court, asking the court to dissolve their
marriage and divide the matrimonial property. After holding several
hearings and obtaining the opinion of an expert, the District Court
dissolved, in a partial decision, the applicant's marriage on 6
February 1997.
- At
the applicant's request, the case was suspended between 29 January
1999 and 1 August 2000 pending a related dispute. After holding
numerous further hearings and obtaining the opinions of additional
experts, the court divided the matrimonial property on 8 June
2004.
- On
appeal, on 12 May 2005 the Veszprém County Regional Court
partly changed the first-instance decision.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that
argument.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted
over eleven and a half years. Of this time, one and a half years
corresponding to the suspension of the case requested by the
applicant must be deducted. However, the remaining period still
exceeds ten years for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such
lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
- 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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v.
France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed an unspecified
amount in respect of pecuniary damage and 9,100 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these
claims. In the absence of a quantified claim, the Court cannot
examine the claim for pecuniary damage; it therefore rejects this
claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained
some non-pecuniary damage and awards her, on the basis of equity, EUR
8,000.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 500 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court, which amount corresponds to various clerical costs,
translation fees and those of her lawyer, supported by documents. 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. The Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the
entirety of the sum claimed, i.e. EUR 500.
- 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;
- 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,
(i) EUR
8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage,
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, 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 27 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
