In the case of Baksa 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 21 May 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 44880/08) 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 national, Mr György Baksa (“the applicant”),
on 12 September 2008.
The applicant was
represented by Mr Cs. Bognár, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi,
Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
On 21 January 2013 the application was
communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
In 2001 the applicant lodged an action in damages
against the owner of a flat in which he lived with his family. He also sought
the protection of possession with respect to the flat. The respondent lodged a
counter-claim seeking the payment of usage fees for the flat.
After having held several hearings and obtained
the opinions of experts, on 14 November 2007 the Budapest Regional Court
delivered its judgment, finding that the respondent was liable for the damages
sought. It partly upheld the counter-claim of the respondent and ordered the
applicant to pay usage fees for the flat.
On 15 January 2008 the Budapest Court of Appeal,
sitting as a second-instance court, increased the amount to be paid to the
applicant.
On 26 June 2008, the Supreme Court, acting as a
review instance, upheld decreased the amount to be paid to the applicant and
increased the amount of usage fees to be paid to the respondent.
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 to be taken into consideration began in
2001 and ended on 26 June 2008. It thus lasted approximately seven years for three
levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy
proceedings, this complaint 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 applicant further complained that the length
of the proceedings complained of had infringed his right to the peaceful
enjoyment of his possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court notes that this complaint is linked to
the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible.
Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1
(see paragraph 14 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to
examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23, Series
A no. 194-C).
The applicant lastly complained that he suffered
non-pecuniary damages in that his family had disintegrated due to the conduct
of the owner. He alleged a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant could have
brought an action against the owner of the flat seeking compensation for
damages under section 339 of the Civil Code. However, he did not do so. This
aspect of the case cannot therefore be examined on the merits for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies (see for example Horváth and Vadászi
v. Hungary (dec.), no. 2351/06, 9 November 2010). This complaint must therefore
be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant
claimed 120,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage incurred on
account of the unreasonably lengthy proceedings.
The Government contested the claims.
The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR
1,300 under this head.
The applicant made no costs claim in relation to
his length complaint.
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 complaints concerning Article
6 § 1of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 that there is no need to examine the
complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the
applicant, within three months, EUR 1,300 (one thousand three hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be
converted into Hungarian forints at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned
three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above
amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central
Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
5. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 June 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Peer
Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
