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 KUSTÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 42260/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8
January 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 Kustár 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 2 December 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 42260/05) 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 Dániel
Kustár (“the applicant”), on 16 November 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms M. Hartmann, a lawyer practising in
Szekszárd. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
17 March 2008 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Dunaegyháza.
- On
19 March 1999 the applicant brought an action against a cooperative
of which he was an external shareholder. He claimed that a resolution
of the cooperative establishing the value of his share was wrong.
- On
11 December 2001 the Kunszentmiklós District Court dismissed
his action. On 31 January 2002 it completed this decision with a
ruling concerning the costs.
- On
appeal, on 3 October 2002 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional
Court reversed these decisions, found for the applicant in an interim
decision and quashed the resolution in question. In the ensuing
proceedings, on 17 March 2004 the District Court awarded the
applicant 258,000 Hungarian forints plus accrued interest. On
2 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this ruling in a
partial decision.
- However,
on 12 May 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 3 October
2002 and upheld the original decision of 11 December 2001, in which
the applicant's claim had been rejected. The Supreme Court pointed
out that the Regional Court's interim findings entitling the
applicant – only an external shareholder – to certain
payments, which were reserved for actual members, were wrong. This
decision was received at the District Court with a view to
despatching on 17 June 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 March 1999 and
ended on 17 June 2005. It thus lasted six years and three months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- 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.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- 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, cited above).
- 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.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.
1, the applicant also complained about the unfairness and the outcome
of the case.
-
In so far as the applicant's complaint may be understood to concern
the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings
before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to
Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of
the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the
Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors
of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in
so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by
the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention
guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any
rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be
assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by
national law and the national courts (García Ruiz v. Spain
[GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I).
- The
Court considers that there is nothing in the case file disclosing any
appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the
proceedings were otherwise unfair. Moreover, it notes that the
applicant was not deprived of his possessions by a State measure;
rather, the domestic courts adjudicated a civil dispute between
private parties, in a procedure devoid of any sign of arbitrariness.
In these circumstances, it concludes that this complaint is
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and
must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 1,877,311 Hungarian forints (HUF)
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the 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 applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR
1,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 62,840
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court.
- 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 information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable that the equivalent in euros of the sum
claimed should be awarded in full.
C. Default interest
- 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 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:
(i)
EUR 1,200 (one thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 230 (two hundred thirty euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
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 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 8 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
