SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
VARGÁNÉ FEKETE v. HUNGARY
(Application no.
27618/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 October 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Vargáné Fekete 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 Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 27618/10) 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, Ms Ildikó Vargáné Fekete (“the
applicant”), on 10 May 2010.
The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were
represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
On 7 March 2013 the application was communicated to
the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Budapest.
On 18 June 2000 the applicant’s ex-husband lodged
an action for divorce and partition of matrimonial property against the
applicant.
On 6 November 2007 the Buda Central District
Court delivered a judgment.
Both the applicant and the plaintiff appealed. On
4 September 2008 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance
court, delivered a judgment partly modifying the first-instance judgment.
The applicant’s ex-husband lodged a petition for
review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 6 October 2009, after an
examination on the merits.
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
on 18 June 2000 and ended on 6 October 2009. It thus lasted approximately nine
years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction. In
view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
The Court reiterates that in cases relating to
civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is also a relevant
consideration, and special diligence is required in view of the possible
consequences which the excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on
enjoyment of the right to respect for family life (Laino v. Italy [GC],
no. 33158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I).
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.
The applicant claimed 68,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The Government contested these claims.
The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards her, on the basis of equity, EUR
3,900.
The applicant made no costs claim.
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, EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine 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;
4. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Atilla Nalbant Peer
Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
