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 ORAVECZ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 15481/05)
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 Oravecz 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. 15481/05) 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, Mr László
Oravecz (“the applicant”), on 11 April 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms O. Federits, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
10 February 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 1950 and lives in Budapest.
- Dismissed
from the civil service, the applicant brought an action against the
Budapest Municipality in August 1996. He sought reinstatement and
compensation.
- After
several hearings, on 3 March 2004 the Budapest Labour Court partly
found for him. On 20 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court
dismissed his appeal. On 16 February 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed
his petition for review.
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
almost eight and a half years for three 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, especially since special diligence is
necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17). 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 Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1, the applicant also complained of the unfairness and the outcome of
the case. However, an examination of the case file does not disclose
any evidence whatsoever of a violation of these provisions. In
particular, there are no elements to suggest that the courts lacked
impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or that
the applicant was arbitrarily deprived of his possessions. It follows
that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must
be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the
Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 1.5 million
Hungarian forints in respect of pecuniary damage and 30,000 euros
(EUR) plus accrued interest 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 4,000 under that head,
having regard to what was at stake in the litigation.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,500 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court. 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
notes that the applicant's costs claim has not been substantiated by
any relevant documents and must therefore be rejected.
- 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 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 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 27 October 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
