SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
CSERJÉS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no.
53834/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 November 2012
This judgment is final but it may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cserjés and Others 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 23 October 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 53834/07) 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 eighteen
Hungarian nationals (see Annex for details) on 4 December 2007.
The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
On 13 September 2010
the application was communicated 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
Upon a private company’s request, in May 1996 L.
K., a forest engineer employed by the company, made an estimation of the amount
of damages caused to the company’s territory by wild animals under the
responsibility of a hunting society. Subsequently, on 1 August 1996 the company
brought an action in compensation against the hunting society, the members of
which were the applicants.
In March 1997 the hunting society was dissolved.
The proceedings were discontinued on 10 June 1997, pending the identification
of successors to the proceedings.
On 6 March 1999 the proceedings continued, as the
plaintiff designated the applicants as successors to the proceedings.
The Kiskőrös District Court appointed an
expert, J. K., to establish the value of the hunters’ house. The expert filed
an opinion on 30 November 2000.
On 9 July 2003 the Kiskőrös District Court found
for the plaintiff. This judgment was quashed by the Csongrád County Regional
Court on 23 February 2005.
In the resumed proceedings, due to the bias declared
by the judges in Bács-Kiskun County, the case was heard by the Szeged District
Court. The court requested L. K. to submit a further expert report to establish
the amount of damages caused. He filed an opinion on 24 January 2006.
On 3 March 2006 the first-instance court gave
judgment, finding for the plaintiff. The applicants appealed, arguing - among
others - that they had not received the copy of minutes of the hearing of 28
October 2005 on time, and questioning the impartiality of L. K.
On appeal, the Csongrád County Regional Court
upheld the District Court’s judgment. Concerning the minutes of the hearing,
the second-instance court pointed out that the District Court had no legal
obligation to send them the minutes automatically. They had the options of
requesting copies either by post or in person at the court. The applicants had requested
the copies for the first time on 11 January 2006, following which the court had
sent the minutes on 13 January 2006 despite the fact that the applicants had
not paid the copy fees. The delivery of the mail sent according to the rules
had not been successful. Following the repeated request of the applicants on
16 February 2006, the copies had been sent once again on 21 February
2006. Moreover, the court pointed out that the respondents had been present at
the hearing, where they had the opportunity to take notes, and could have
submitted observations within eight days to L. K.’s expert report, delivered to
them on 13 February 2006. As to the impartiality of L. K., the court emphasised
that he had been the only expert to see the damages on-site in 1996. Ten years
after the occurrence of the damages, appointing a further forensic expert to proceed
on the basis of documentary evidence would have been futile in the court’s
opinion. In addition, L. K. had followed the court’s instructions when
preparing the expert report.
The applicants lodged a petition for review with
the Supreme Court, which upheld the final judgment on 10 May 2007. This
decision was served on the applicants on 14 June 2007.
THE LAW
The applicants 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 period to be taken into consideration
started on 6 March 1999 in respect of the applicants when they were designated
as successors to the proceedings and ended on 10 May 2007. The proceedings thus
lasted eight years and two months before three court instances. 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.
The applicants also complained under Article 6 §
1 about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. In particular, they
complained that the expert appointed to estimate the amount of damages caused,
L. K., had been selected outside from the forensic experts’ list and had been
biased, as he used to be employed by the plaintiff. Further to this, they had
not been informed of the expert examination and could therefore not submit
comments on it. Moreover, they complained that they had not received the copies
of the minutes of the hearing held on 28 October 2005 until 28 February
2006. Therefore they were unable to prepare adequately their defense for the
hearing held on 3 March 2006. Finally, they complained that they had not been
informed of the date of J. K. expert’s onsite examination concerning the
determination of the value of the hunters’ house, contrary to the plaintiff.
As regards L. K. and the copies of minutes, the Court
takes the view that the Csongrád County Regional Court had given adequate
reasoning as to their compliance with the law. There is no reason to depart
from the domestic court’s findings in this respect, which disclose no
appearance of arbitrariness. It follows that these parts of the application are
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be
rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
Concerning J. K.’s on-site examination, the
Court observes that the applicants had failed to raise this complaint before
the domestic courts. This part of the application is therefore to be rejected
for failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1
and 4 of the Convention.
Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the
applicants claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 4,800 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government
contested these claims. Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court
considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and
awards them each EUR 2,400, with the exception of Mr and Mrs István Márin, who
form household economic unit and should therefore receive the sum jointly.
The applicants also claimed EUR 500 jointly in
respect of costs. 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 applicants jointly the sum in full 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
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 applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian
forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) each,
with the exception of Mr and Mrs István Márin, who should be awarded this sum
jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary
damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros) jointly, plus any
tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, 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 applicants’
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 November
2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy Registrar President
Annex
Applicants in case
No. 53834/07
|
Antal Schaffer
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
József Gyurákovics
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Péter Schindler
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
András Walter
|
|
Budapest
|
|
István Plech
|
|
Kéleshalom
|
|
József Oláh
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Árpád Solt
|
|
Baja
|
|
Sándor Nagy
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
István Dénes
|
|
Kiskőrös
|
|
Ferenc Magyar
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Ferdinánd Tóth
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Csaba Lei
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Péter Lei
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
János Magyar
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Sándor Cserjés
|
|
Baja
|
|
Mária Pánczél
(Istvánné Márin)
|
|
Császártöltés
|
|
Tamás Marschall
|
|
Budapest
|
|
István Márin
|
|
Császártöltés
|
