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 HESZ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 39382/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
November 2010
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 Hesz v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Danutė
Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 39382/06) 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 a
Hungarian national, Mr György Hesz (“the applicant”),
on 28 August 2006.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
- On
21 October 2009 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 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
- On
10 September 1992 the applicant brought an action against several
respondents before the Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court,
requesting it to establish the invalidity of a contract and to order
the respondents to vacate the house in which they lived.
- Subsequently,
several hearings took place and the opinion of an expert was
obtained. Between 4 February 1997 and 20 May 1999 the case was
suspended pending a related procedure before the land registry.
- After
several further hearings, on 30 June 2004 the District Court
dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld
the essence of the first-instance decision on 13 April 2005. On 4
April 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for
review.
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
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began
only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right
of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the
reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must
be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court notes
that the case had been pending for about two months on that date. The
period in question ended on 4 April 2006. It thus lasted thirteen
years and seven months. Of this time, two years and three months
corresponding to the suspension of the proceedings, apparently
justified and thus not imputable to the State, must be deducted.
However, the remaining period still exceeds eleven years and four
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 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.
- The applicant also complained
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the decisions given
by the courts. In so far as his 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). In the present case, the Court considers that the
applicant's submissions do not disclose any elements of arbitrariness
and, hence, no appearance of a violation of his rights under Article
6 of the Convention has been demonstrated. It follows that this part
of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §
4 of the Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 8,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (He made no claim for costs
and expenses.) The Government accepted the damages claim. The Court
considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary
damage. It awards him the full sum claimed, i.e. EUR 8,000 (cf.
Wolfgéher and Turula v. Hungary, no. 36739/05, §
11, 3 November 2009).
- 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, EUR 8,000
(eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 amount 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 30 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
