SECOND SECTION

CASE OF BARÁTI v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 44413/05)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

11 January 2011

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Baráti 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 7 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 44413/05) 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 Péter Baráti (“the applicant”), on 9 December 2005.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr B. Halmos, a lawyer practising in Hatvan. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3.  On 22 June 2009 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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Hatvan.
5.  In February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job; his former employer also required him to make certain payments in respect of damage allegedly caused while in service. The applicant challenged these measures before the courts as of 16 March 1999.
6.  On 14 September 1999 the Eger Labour Court dismissed his action. On 8 February 2000 the Heves County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
7.  The resumed proceedings were suspended on 26 March 2000 pending the simultaneous criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant. After the termination of this case, the procedure restarted and the Labour Court gave judgment on 9 March 2004, dismissing the applicant's claims.
8.  On appeal, on 28 May 2004 the Regional Court, in a partial judgment, accepted some of the applicant's claims, holding that his dismissal had been unlawful and reducing the reimbursement payable.
9.  However, on 18 May 2005 the Supreme Court reversed this decision, dismissed the applicant's case and upheld the District Court's judgment. This decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 22 June 2005.
THE LAW
10.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government did not express a view on the matter.
11.  The period to be taken into consideration lasted six years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
12.  The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17). It 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).
13.  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.
14.  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In so far as this 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 (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. 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.
15.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 10,151,447 Hungarian forints (HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 5,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims.
16.  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 1,600 under that head, having regard to what was at stake in the litigation.
17.  The applicant also claimed HUF 378,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads.
18.  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, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Françoise Elens-Passos	Dragoljub Popović
	Deputy Registrar	President