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 WOLFGÉHER AND TURULA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 36739/05)
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 Wolfgéher and Turula 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. 36739/05) 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 three Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs György Wolfgéher
and Mrs Kálmán Turula (“the applicants”),
on 7 October 2005.
- The
applicants were represented by Ms I. Probstner, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
1 April 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
applicants were born in 1957, 1959 and 1927, respectively, and live
in Budapest. The first and second applicants are a married couple,
and the third applicant is the second applicant’s mother. They
live together in the house which was the object of the litigation
outlined below.
- On
10 September 1992 two individuals brought an action against the
applicants before the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court,
requesting it to establish the invalidity of a contract and to order
the applicants to vacate the house in which they lived.
- Subsequently,
several hearings took place and the opinion of an expert was
obtained. Between 4 February 1997 and 20 May 1999 the case was
suspended pending a related procedure before the land registry.
- After
several further hearings, on 30 June 2004 the District Court
dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld
the essence of the first-instance decision on 13 April 2005.
THE LAW
- The
applicants 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 began
only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right
of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court notes
that the case had been pending for about two months on that date. The
period in question ended on 13 April 2005. It thus lasted over twelve
years and five months. Of this time, two years and three months
corresponding to the suspension of the proceedings, apparently
justified and thus not imputable to the State, 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 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 applicants claimed, jointly,
8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 30,000 in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. (They made no claim for costs and
expenses.) The Government contested the damages claim. 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 applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them,
jointly, EUR 8,000.
- 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 applicants, jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 8,000 (eight 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 applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
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
