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 CZIGÁNYIK v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 38636/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
March 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Czigányik v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
President,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 February 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 38636/06) 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 Rezső Czigányik (“the
applicant”), on 27 June 2006.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
- On
19 November 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
- The
applicant was born in 1941 and lives in Budapest.
- On
8 November 1994 a private individual brought an action against the
applicant before the Budapest II/III District Court concerning the
performance of an agreement on the modification of their respective
shares held in a commonly owned real property.
- After
several hearings, on 23 January 1996 the court delivered a partial
judgment in which it dismissed the action in its part seeking the
annulment of the agreement. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court
quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first instance
court on 13 November 1996.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the District Court delivered a partial
judgment on 23 April 1997 in which it again dismissed the plaintiff's
action. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 24
June 1998.
- On
21 February 2003 the District Court delivered a judgment which was
partially quashed on 5 February 2004 by the Budapest Regional Court
in its part concerning the termination of the co-ownership.
- On
17 March 2004 the proceedings were suspended by the Budapest Regional
Court, pending the registration of a relevant note on the title deed.
- On
1 April 2009 the change of ownership ratios was registered on the
title deed. The proceedings concerning the termination of the
co-ownership are pending before the first instance court.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government
contested this view.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 8 November 1994.
According to the Government's view, the proceedings were essentially
terminated on 1 April 2009 with the registration of the
ownership ratios in the title deed. The Court observes, however, that
the proceedings for the termination of the co-ownership are still
pending before the domestic courts; the Government's view must
therefore be rejected. The proceedings have thus already lasted to
date over sixteen years and three months for two levels of
jurisdiction.
- 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.
- The
applicant also complained under Article 8 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the outcome of
the proceedings. The Court notes, however, that the proceedings are
still pending before the domestic courts, rendering this complaint
premature. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 30,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested
the claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards
him EUR 17,600 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed 974,585 Hungarian forints (EUR 3,540) 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 not
represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 in respect of all costs
incurred.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaints 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,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
17,600 (seventeen thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may
be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
500 (five 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 1 March 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ireneu
Cabral Barreto
Deputy Registrar President
