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 ZOLTÁNNÉ KALMÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 16073/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
July 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zoltánné Kalmár v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16073/07) 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, Mrs Zoltánné
Kalmár (“the applicant”), on 6 April 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr J. Paraizs, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
- On
9 February 2010 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14,
the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Budapest.
- On
6 March 1995 the applicant and another plaintiff brought an action
before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the invalidation of a
contract.
- On
7 May 1996 the court held a hearing and, on 21 June 1996, appointed
an expert who filed an opinion on 24 June 1998.
- On
20 October 1998, 12 January, 9 March, 11 May and 22 June 1999
hearings were held. Subsequently the proceedings were interrupted on
account of the death of the applicant's co-plaintiff. On 28 January
2000 a successor joined the proceedings.
- On
10 March 2000 the case was suspended pending the termination of
criminal proceedings against the respondents which the court
considered a preliminary question. This prosecution, conducted on
charges of financial fraud, originated in 1997. On 13 May 2005 the
plaintiffs informed the court of the termination of the criminal case
by the appellate criminal court and requested the continuation of the
civil proceedings.
- On
30 August, 5 and 8 November 2005 the court held hearings. On
15 November 2005 it gave judgment, finding for the plaintiffs.
On 29 November 2005 the respondents appealed.
- On
5 October 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by
judgment of 15 February 2007, upheld the first-instance decision.
- On
11 May 2007 the respondents filed a petition for review. By its
review judgment of 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the
final judgment.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested
that argument, submitting in essence that the suspension of the
proceedings complained of (see paragraph 8 above), a measure in
place for some five years, was inevitable in the circumstances, and
its duration should be deducted from the overall length.
- The
Court observes that the criminal proceedings, with regard to which
the applicant's action was suspended between March 2000 and
May
2005, themselves lasted some eight years for two levels of
jurisdiction. For the Court, this duration alone raises concerns,
even in a potentially complex fraud case. Consequently, the necessity
to suspend the principal case pending the criminal one cannot as such
exculpate the authorities for the entire protraction. Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration lasted almost twelve years
and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such
lengthy proceedings, this complaint must 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, among many other authorities, 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 considers 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 12,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested
the claim. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court
awards the applicant EUR 9,600 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 900 for those incurred before the
Court, the latter item being billable by his lawyer. The Government
contested the claim.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and in the light of its
case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the
domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the full
sum claimed, that is, EUR 900 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
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
9,600 (nine thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
900 (nine hundred 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 27 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
