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 NEU v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 45392/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
November 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 Neu 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 Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 45392/05) 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 Gábor
Neu (“the applicant”), on 14 December 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr A. Dörnyei, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
9 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 1968 and lives in Isaszeg.
- In
October 1993 criminal proceedings were initiated against the
applicant. On 29 June 1994 the applicant and ten other persons were
indicted for 22 counts of trafficking in stolen goods.
- After
suspending the trial on several occasions because certain defendants
had absconded, and following numerous hearings, on 18 September
2006 the Pest Central District Court sentenced the applicant to a
fine.
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 thirteen years for one level 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 Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC],
no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). 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 14,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (He made no claim for costs
and expenses.) The Government contested the damages claim. The Court
considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary
damage, and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR 10,000.
- 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, EUR 10,000 (ten
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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 November 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
