SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
FERENCSIK v. HUNGARY
(Application no.
33275/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January 2013
This judgment is final but
it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ferencsik 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, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 33275/08) 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 Attila Ferencsik (“the applicant”), on
14 June 2008.
The applicant was
represented by Ms A. Herczeg, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi,
Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
On 22 August 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 was born in 1958 and lives in Balassagyarmat.
On 26 April 1997 criminal proceedings were
instituted against the applicant and eighteen other defendants for fraud. A ban
on travel was also imposed on him until 2003.
On 27 January 2003 the Budapest Regional Public
Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant before
the Pest Central District Court. From February 2007 onwards the District Court
held one hundred and nine hearings and heard one hundred and one witnesses and
eleven experts.
On 14 November 2007 the District Court gave
judgment, acquitting the applicant. The applicant and his counsel took note of
the decision, therefore it became final the same day.
On 17 January 2008 a written copy of the judgment
was served on the applicant.
THE LAW
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, the final
domestic decision being the one given by the Pest Central District Court on 14
November 2007. As the applicant took note of the judgment, it became final the
same day, whereas the application was introduced only on 14
June 2008, i.e. more than six months later.
. The
Court observes that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically
with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article
35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as
running from the date of service of the copy of the decision (Worm v.
Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions
1997 V), which took place on 17 January 2008. The Government’s objection must
therefore be rejected and this part of the application be declared admissible.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 26 April 1997 and ended on 14 November 2007. It thus lasted ten years and
six months for one level 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).
The Court reiterates that
the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light
of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria:
the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant
authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among
many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], cited above, § 43). The Government pointed
out that the proceedings were particularly complex, and referred to the high
number of hearings held and witnesses and experts heard. While acknowledging
the complexity of the case, the Court nevertheless notes that there had been
considerable periods of inactivity in the proceedings, such as the period
between the submission of the bill of indictment and the first hearing (see
paragraph 7 above). Having examined all the material
submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that, despite the rather complex nature of the proceedings, in the
instant case the length of the proceedings was nevertheless excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly
been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
The applicant also complained of a violation of
his right to respect for his family life resulting from the length of the
proceedings complained of. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention. In
particular, he submitted that due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings,
his company went bankrupt, and that he was under criminal indictment for an
excessive period.
The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one
examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. Having
regard to the finding relating to Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 13 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case,
there has been a violation of Article 8 (see, among other authorities, Laino
v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I).
Moreover, the applicant complained, relying on
Article 8 of the Convention, that he had been prohibited from travelling abroad
until 2003. However, the application was introduced only
on 14 June 2008, i.e. outside the six-month time-limit laid down in
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the
application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
He further submitted that, in the course of the
criminal proceedings, certain newspaper articles had been published where he
had been presented in an unfavourable light, in violation of his Article 8
rights. The Court observes that the applicant did not
bring an action for libel before the domestic courts. It follows that this part
of the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Lastly, the applicant’s submission that he had
been prohibited from changing place of residence is wholly unsubstantiated. This
part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning
of Article 35 § (a) 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the
applicant claimed 1,000,000 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 and awards him, on an equitable basis,
EUR 11,500 under this head.
The applicant also claimed EUR 30,000 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 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
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings and the related Article 8 complaint admissible and
the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that it is not necessary to examine
the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. 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 11,500 (eleven thousand five 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President
