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
1.  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.
2.  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.
3.  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
4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Dunaegyháza.
5.  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.
6.  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.
7.  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.
8.  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
9.  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...”
10.  The Government contested that argument.
11.  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
12.  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
13.  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).
14.  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).
15.  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
16.  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.
17.   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).
18.  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
19.  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
20.  The applicant claimed 1,877,311 Hungarian forints (HUF) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
21.  The Government contested the claim.
22.  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
23.  The applicant also claimed HUF 62,840 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
24.  The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
25.  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
26.  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
1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  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;

4.  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