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 TAMÁSI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 25848/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
April 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 Tamási and
Others 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 Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 31 March 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 25848/06) 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 four Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Lajos
Tamási and Mr and Mrs Vilmos Károlyi (“the
applicants”), on 5 June 2006.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr M. Róth, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and
Law Enforcement.
- The
applicants alleged that the Land Registry had maintained an uncertain
legal situation in their case for an unduly long period of time. They
also submitted that the ensuing court proceedings had not been fair.
- The
applicants and the Government each filed observations on the merits
(Rule 59 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1935, 1936, 1949 and 1949 respectively and
live in Budapest.
- The
applicants, two married couples, were parties to a 1996 sale and
purchase agreement concerning a flat. One of the applicants on the
sellers' side was registered in the land register only as the holder
of an annotation rather than proprietor. Moreover, her predecessor
(“the Predecessor”) was in the same situation, and it was
the person who had sold the flat to the Predecessor in 1993 that was
registered as the owner (“the Owner”). Because in 2000
the Predecessor had not been able to obtain from the Owner an
authorisation to have himself registered as proprietor, neither his
nor the applicants' requests to have the ensuing transactions
registered were granted by the District Land Registry.
- The
applicants lodged an appeal with the Budapest Land Registry. They
complained that, had they been informed of the procedure concerning
the Predecessor and the Owner, they would have been able to obtain
the necessary authorisation themselves, thereby enabling the
registration of the chain of transactions.
- Although
the missing authorisation had meanwhile been obtained and in fact
submitted, the Land Registry dismissed the appeal. On 9 December 2005
the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants' request for
judicial review. It relied on leading judgments of the Supreme Court,
whose text was available only to the respondent Land Registry (which
had also been respondent in the earlier procedures) but not to the
applicants. In sum, the applicants' ownership was not registered at
that stage.
- In
pursuit of the applicants' petition for review, on 9 May 2006 the
Supreme Court ordered that review proceedings concerning the merits
of the case be instituted.
- On
15 November 2006 the Supreme Court's review bench dismissed the
applicants' petition. This decision was served on their lawyer on
11 December 2006.
- The
applicants subsequently submitted a request, under sections
86-88
of Act no. 141 of 1997 (the chapter concerning properties with an
unresolved status in the land register), to have the situation of the
property in question regularised in the land register.
- The
applicants' request was granted and the transaction eventually
registered on 13 June 2008.
THE LAW
- The applicants complained under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
that the Land Registry – by not having duly processed the
pending annotations in the chain of transactions – had
maintained an uncertain legal situation from 1993 to 2000.
Consequently, their property rights had been breached in that their
original request for registration had been dismissed and the
regularisation of their 1996 transaction had only been accomplished
in 2008.
- The Government contested that
argument.
- Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention provides as relevant:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
- Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 provides as relevant:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of
his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the
conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of
international law...”
- The
Court considers that it is appropriate to regard this complaint as
one essentially based on the right to a “hearing within a
reasonable time” for the purposes of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention, especially in view of the fact that the applicants'
transaction was eventually registered, although with considerable
delay.
- The period to be taken into
consideration by the Court began in 1996 and ended in 2008. It
therefore lasted approximately twelve years for two administrative
and two judicial instances. 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.
- In these circumstances, the
Court considers that, while the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 is likewise admissible, it is not necessary to examine
separately whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of
that provision (see Zanghì v.
Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23,
Series A no. 194 C).
- The
applicants also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of
the Convention that the proceedings had been unfair. The
Government contested this view.
- The
Court observes that – although the Supreme Court dismissed the
applicants' claims in the original administrative litigation –
their request to have their transaction registered was eventually
granted by the authorities. In these circumstances, it is satisfied
that the applicants cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of
their Convention rights in this connection. This complaint is
therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of
the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- Under
Article 41 of the Convention, each of the applicants claimed one
million Hungarian forints
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government accepted this claim.
- The
Court therefore awards the equivalent in euros of the full sum
claimed, i.e. EUR 3,850, payable to each of the applicants.
- For
the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, the applicants
claimed, jointly, EUR 1,600 plus VAT at 20% in respect of their
lawyer's fee, corresponding to 16 hours of legal work charged at an
hourly rate of EUR 100, plus VAT, as well as EUR 300 in respect
of miscellaneous 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
concludes that the sum claimed 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 complaints concerning the length of
the proceedings and the alleged interference with the applicants'
property rights admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine
separately the merits of the complaint
under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay, 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 3,850 (three thousand eight hundred and fifty
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to each of the
applicants, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,900 (one thousand nine hundred euros) to the
applicants, jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, 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;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 April 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
