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 CZIFRA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 13290/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
March 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 Czifra v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 13290/05) 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 József Czifra, on 2 March 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Róbert Horváth, a
lawyer practising in Kiskunhalas. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
10 April 2008 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 1953 and lives in Kunfehértó.
A. Liquidation proceedings
- On
28 March 1997 the applicant, a subcontractor of Telekábel Ltd.
(“the Company”), initiated the liquidation of the Company
before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, since the
Company had become insolvent and not paid his invoices.
- On
10 September 1997 the Regional Court established the insolvency of
the Company and ordered its liquidation. This decision gained binding
force on 25 June 1998. The liquidation proceedings eventually
involved thirty-one creditors in total.
- The
debtor's interim balance sheet was established on 1 March 2000.
- After
adjudicating several complaints, on 21 October 2004 the Bács-Kiskun
County Regional Court established the termination of the liquidation
proceedings and dissolved the Company. This decision was served on
the applicant on 20 January 2005.
B. Civil proceedings against the Company
- On
15 July 1997 the Company signed an agreement with one of its main
customers to pay the latter a specific amount of money. It was
stipulated that, in exchange, the customer would desist from any
further claims.
- On
2 December 1999 the applicant and another creditor brought an action
against the Company and the above-mentioned customer before the
Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, requesting the court to
rule the respondents' agreement invalid.
- After
a remittal, the Szeged Court of Appeal finally found in part for the
plaintiffs on 27 February 2004. It further ordered the applicant to
pay part of the court fees. This decision was served on the applicant
on 7 April 2004.
- On
15 November 2004 the Bács-Kiskun County Duties Office
requested the applicant to pay the court fees. On the applicant's
request, the enforcement of this decision was suspended until 31
October 2006 by the Duties Office on 7 October 2005. On 22 March
2007 the applicant's salary was attached by the Tax Authority. The
applicant lodged a demurrer of execution against the decision, which
was dismissed. The enforcement proceedings are still pending.
C. First set of proceedings against the applicant due
to a tax debt
- On
25 June 2002 the Tax Authority seized part of the payment which the
applicant, in tax debt, had received as a result of his claim against
the Company.
- On
5 April 2003 the Tax Authority, observing that the applicant still
had some tax debts, ordered enforcement on his real estate. He did
not lodge a demurrer of execution against this decision.
- On
13 May 2003 the Kiskunhalas Notary, noting that the applicant had not
paid his tax debts, withdrew his private entrepreneur's licence. He
did not lodge an administrative appeal against this decision.
- On
23 March 2004 the Tax Authority also seized the applicant's movable
property. On 26 May 2004 part of the default interest on the tax debt
was cancelled for reasons of equity.
- The
applicant having finally paid the debt, the Tax Authority
discontinued the enforcement proceedings on 11 November 2004.
- On
15 September 2005 the Tax Authority nevertheless requested the
applicant to pay the default interest on the tax debt. On 25 May 2006
the applicant's request to have this latter debt annulled was
rejected by the Tax Authority. This decision was upheld by the
National Tax Authority on 18 July 2006. The applicant did not
seek judicial review of that decision.
D. Second set of proceedings against the applicant due
to a local tax debt
- On
10 August 2005 the Kiskunhalas Notary notified the applicant that he
owed some local tax. On 20 December 2005 the Notary warned the
applicant that he should pay additional amounts of local tax. The
applicant lodged a complaint against these impositions with the
Bács-Kiskun County Administrative Office.
- On
27 February 2006 the Administrative Office rejected the complaint.
- On
31 March 2006 the applicant finally paid the debt. However, the
Notary obliged him to pay default interest.
- Since
he did not do so, the Kunfehértó Notary informed the
applicant on 10 July 2006 that part of his pension would be attached
in order to secure the payment of the default interest.
- The
applicant did not lodge a demurrer of execution against the
enforcement measures.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings described in
Chapter A above had been incompatible with the “reasonable
time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 28 March 1997 and
ended on 20 January 2005. It thus lasted almost seven years and
ten months for one level of jurisdiction.
- 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.
- 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 finds 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.
- The
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome
and unfairness of the litigation and court fee enforcement described
in Chapter B, as well as about that of both sets of tax proceedings
outlined in Chapters C and D above.
- As
to the proceedings in Chapter B, the Court observes that the final
decision in the civil case was given by the Szeged Court of Appeal on
27 February 2004. However, the application was introduced only
on 2 March 2005, i.e. more than six months later. Moreover, the
enforcement of the court fees is still pending, which renders the
related complaint premature. It follows that these complaints are
inadmissible, respectively for non-respect of the six-month
time-limit and non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
- Concerning
the cases in Chapters C and D, the Court notes that the applicant
failed to lodge a demurrer of execution against the respective
decisions, to appeal against the withdrawal of his licence or to seek
judicial review. These complaints must therefore be rejected for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§
1 and 4 of the Convention.
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 18.8 million
Hungarian forints (HUF)
in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 13 million
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
6,400 under that head.
- The
applicant also claimed for costs and expenses incurred before the
Court HUF 166,666
in respect of the fee of his lawyer (this figure, subject to VAT at
20%, has been stipulated in a contract submitted by the applicant)
and HUF 100,000
in respect of clerical costs. 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. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers that the sums claimed, the equivalent of which is
approximately EUR 920, should be awarded in full.
- 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 liquidation 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, the following
amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 6,400 (six thousand four hundred euros), plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 920 (nine hundred and twenty euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 24 March 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
