SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
MAGYAR CEMENT KFT v. HUNGARY
(Application no.
33795/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 May 2013
This judgment is final but
it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Magyar Cement Kft v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human
Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 May 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 33795/08) 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 limited liability company, Magyar Cement Kft (“the
applicant”), on 14 July 2008.
The applicant was
represented by Mr I. Jarovinszkij, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent,
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
On 13 April 2011 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
The applicant is a
limited liability company with its seat in Tokod.
On 8 August 1994, the
applicant, as the successful bidder in privatisation proceedings, acquired
shares and non-current assets of a previously state-owned public company
limited by shares.
On 20 February 1995 a
competing bidder business entity challenged before the Budapest Regional Court
the validity of the privatisation contract and the sale and purchase agreement
concluded by the applicant company.
On 3 April 1998 the Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action.
On 4 June 1999 the
Supreme Court, acting as a second-instance court, held a hearing, quashed the
partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance.
In the resumed
proceedings the Budapest Regional Court delivered a partial judgment on 1 July
2002. This judgment was quashed again by the Supreme Court on 9 May 2003.
In the resumed
proceedings the Budapest Regional Court dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims.
In its judgment of
15 April 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court,
partially upheld the first-instance judgment and as to the remainder of the claims,
quashed the Budapest Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the
first instance.
The plaintiff lodged
a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which upheld the partial judgment
of the Budapest Court of Appeal 15 November 2010.
As to the remainder of the case, the Budapest Regional Court gave a partial judgment on 29 August 2012. The applicant appealed. The
proceedings are still pending.
THE LAW
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, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ...
tribunal...”
The Government contested that argument.
The period in question began in 20 February 1995
and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over 18 years before three instances.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, and in the absence of any other reason for
inadmissibility, 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 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 made a global claim of 35,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. 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 and awards it EUR 17,000
under this head.
The applicant also claimed EUR 2,800 for the costs
and expenses incurred before 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 for
the proceedings before the Court.
The Court considers it appropriate that the
default interest rate 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
application admissible;
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 17,000 (seventeen thousand 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 28 May 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise
Elens-Passos Peer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
