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 KOKAVECZ (II) v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 12192/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
December 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kokavecz (II) v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto
de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 November 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 12192/06) 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 Pál Kokavecz (“the applicant”),
on 1 March 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms G. Futaki, a lawyer practising in
Békéscsaba. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L.
Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public
Administration and Justice.
- On
9 June 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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1959 and lives in
Békéscsaba.
- On
16 March 1998 J.H. brought an action for payment of rent before the
Szeged District Court against a private individual.
- On
23 March 1999 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending
the termination of separate legal proceedings between the same
parties. The case was resumed on 12 December 2000.
- On
29 May 2001 J.H. assigned his claim to the applicant who joined the
proceedings on 28 June 2001.
- The
case was again suspended between 4 December 2001 and 26 May 2004
pending the termination of a closely related legal dispute.
- Following
several hearings, the District Court delivered its judgment on 7 June
2005 which was served on the applicant on 7 July 2005.
- In
a decision dated 1 September 2005 the District Court established that
the first-instance judgment had become final and enforceable on
26 August 2005 in the absence of appeal by the parties.
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.
- The
Government contested that argument, arguing in particular that the
application was introduced out of time, as the District Court’s
judgment was served on the applicant on 7 July 2005, whereas the
application was introduced only on 1
March 2006, i.e. more than six months later.
- The
Court points out that on 7 July 2005 the judgment was still subject
to appeal by the parties. The fact that the judgment became final in
the absence of appeal by the parties was only communicated to the
applicant on 1 September 2005. The proceedings must be considered to
have ended on that date and therefore the six-month rule was
respected. The Government’s objection must therefore be
rejected.
- The
Court observes that its case-law on the intervention of third parties
in civil proceedings makes the following distinction: where the
applicant has intervened in domestic proceedings only on his or her
own behalf the period to be taken into consideration begins to run
from that date, whereas if the applicant has declared his or her
intention to continue the proceedings as heir he or she can complain
of the entire length of the proceedings (see, as the most recent
authority, M.Ö. v. Turkey, no. 26136/95, § 25,
19 May 2005). The period to be taken into consideration therefore
began only on 28 June 2001 when the applicant joined the proceedings,
and ended on 1 September 2005 with the District Court’s
decision (see paragraph 10 above). It thus lasted four years and two
months for one level of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy
proceedings, the application 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 3,500,000
Hungarian forints (HUF)
in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 10,000 in respect of
non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. The
Court sees no causal link between the pecuniary damage claimed and
the violation found and therefore rejects this claim. However, it
considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary
damage and awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 3,200 under this
head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 5,000 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 applicant, who was represented by a lawyer,
the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
- 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
3,200 (three thousand two 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
