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 PÁTKOVÁ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 41453/05)
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 Pátková 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. 41453/05) 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 dual national of Hungary and the
Czech Republic, Ms Eva Pátková (“the
applicant”), on 11 November 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Pavlok, a lawyer practising in
Prague. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice.
- On
26 June 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).
- On
30 July 2008 the Agent of the Czech Government informed the Registry
that his Government did not intend to intervene in the case on the
basis of Article 36 § 1 of the Convention.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Prague.
- In
the context of an inheritance dispute, in early 1992 the applicant
brought an action before the Hungarian Buda Surroundings District
Court. On 20 July 1992 the case was transferred to the Hungarian Pest
Central District Court.
- On
26 January 2005 the procedure was interrupted after a few hearings
because the applicant did not identify the successor of one of the
respondents who had died.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- As
of 1 April 2006, sections 114/A and 114/B of the Code of Civil
Procedure provided a first instance remedy and appeal for complaints
about the undue length of civil proceedings. The courts dealing with
such complaints, if well-founded, are expected to order measures to
facilitate the progress of the litigation at issue.
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
period to be taken into consideration by the Court only began on
5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of
individual petition took effect. However, the Court notes that, by
that date, the proceedings had already been pending several months.
It ended at the earliest with the interruption of the proceedings on
26 January 2005, some twelve years and three months later. This
complaint 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). It 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. It
therefore 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 further complained that the length of the proceedings had
infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as
guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government contested
that argument.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must likewise be declared admissible. However, having regard to
its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 11 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this
case, there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
(see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23,
Series A no. 194 C).
- Lastly,
the applicant complained that she had no remedy at her disposal to
complain of the delay in the proceedings. The Government contested
this claim, referring to sections 114/A and 114/B of the Code of
Civil Procedure (paragraph 8 above).
- The
Court finds this complaint admissible (see Kudła v. Poland
[GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI) and notes that, at the
time of lodging the present application in November 2005, this remedy
was not yet available to the applicant. Moreover, by the time the
remedy was in force, the proceedings had already been interrupted, by
which time they had been pending some twelve years and three months
after the ratification before the first instance court. This in
itself would constitute a breach of the reasonable time requirement
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for which the applicant had
had no redress either by way of an expedited procedure or by way of
compensation. Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been a
violation of Article 13 of the Convention.
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed
9,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 17,000 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 and awards her, on an equitable basis, EUR
12,000.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 2,000 for those incurred before
the Court, the latter representing her lawyer's fees. She submitted
an invoice for 20,000 Czech korunas (approximately EUR 725) which she
had already paid and stated that she would be liable to pay the
balance on the termination of the case. The Government contested
these claims.
- 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
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings
and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 for the
proceedings before the Court.
- 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 that it is not necessary to examine the
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
13 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 12,000 (twelve thousand euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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
