BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF NEBUSOVÁ v. HUNGARY AND SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 61/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 October 2006
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Nebusová v. Hungary and Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa,
President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mrs A.
Mularoni,
Mrs E. Fura-Sandström,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr J.
Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 September 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The case originated in an
application (no. 61/03) against the
Republic of Hungary and the Slovak Republic lodged with
the Court under Article 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a
Slovak national, Mrs Anna Nebusová (“the applicant”),
on 15 December 2002.
- The Hungarian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and
Law Enforcement.
- On 13 September 2005
the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Hungarian
Government and also to notify the Slovak Government of the case.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
- On 11 October 2005 the Slovak Government declared that
they would not exercise their right under Article 36 § 1 of the
Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court to intervene in the
proceedings.
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Bratislava.
She has a son whose father, a Hungarian national, lives in Miskolc,
Hungary.
- On 9 September 1991 the Bratislava 5th
District Court (Slovakia) ordered the father to pay child
maintenance.
- On 7 June 1994 the applicant, on behalf of her son,
filed a petition with the District Court for the judicial enforcement
of the maintenance payments. She claimed that, since August 1993, the
father had not been paying the maintenance regularly or in full.
- On 31 July 1995 the District Court increased the amount
of child maintenance payable by the father retroactively, as from 1
January 1994. The judgment became final and binding on 6 December
1995.
- On 4 March 1996 the District Court forwarded the
applicant’s petition for enforcement to the Miskolc District
Court (Hungary) under a 1989 treaty between former Czechoslovakia and
Hungary. On 29 April 1996 enforcement proceedings were instituted
before the Miskolc District Court.
- On 10 October 1996 the Miskolc District Court, having
heard the debtor and obtained documents from his employer and the
bank handling the transfer of child maintenance payments in foreign
currency, informed the Bratislava 5th District Court
directly of its finding that the debtor had been making regular
payments. Since no reply or acknowledgement was received from the
Slovak authorities, the Miskolc District Court attempted service
through the Ministry of Justice. Service was finally acknowledged on
21 January 1998.
- On 14 August 2000 the applicant had answered the
debtor’s objection lodged in the meantime. She requested the
Miskolc District Court to re-examine the amount and regularity of the
payments. On 17 November 2000 the court received
information from the bank that some payments had been withheld on
account of the applicant’s failure to submit a certificate of
school attendance, which was required once her son had reached the
age of 16.
- In May or June 2001 the Miskolc District Court
observed that the applicant’s petition for enforcement
concerned amounts due for the period from 1992 to 1996. It informed
her that a claim for maintenance concerning any periods preceding the
claim by more than six months could only be enforced if she proved
that the father had acted in bad faith or that she had had serious
and justified reasons for not having petitioned for enforcement
earlier. The court invited the applicant to substantiate within 15
days of service of the decision whether either of these conditions
was met. The decision was served on the applicant through the
Bratislava Regional Court on 3 September 2001. On 19 September 2001
she replied via the Bratislava Regional Court (Slovakia).
- On 26 October 2001 the Miskolc District Court rejected
the applicant’s petition for enforcement finding that, despite
its above instruction, the applicant had failed to provide the
relevant information. The decision was served through the Bratislava
Regional Court. On the applicant’s appeal in March 2002, the
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court (Hungary)
quashed the first-instance order and remitted the case to the Miskolc
District Court.
- In the resumed proceedings, on 5 March 2003 the
Miskolc District Court declared the decisions of the Bratislava 5th
District Court executable. This decision became final on 8 April
2003.
- On 4 July 2003 execution proceedings were instituted
against the father. It appears that on 15 August and 12 December
2003, respectively, the judicial executor attempted to attach the
father’s salary and tangible assets.
- On 9 January 2004 the father filed with the Miskolc
District Court an objection to the execution. After the applicant’s
claims had been recalculated (given that the debt was determined in
Slovak currency, whereas the applicant had claimed payments in
American dollars, and the amounts were deducted from the debtor’s
salary in Hungarian currency), the execution order was supplemented
on 6 January 2005 and served on 1 June 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION BY HUNGARY ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROTRACTION OF THE
PROCEEDINGS
- The applicant complained that the length of the
Hungarian 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 argued that the two-and-a-half-year
period between 21 January 1998, when the Miskolc District Court
received confirmation that its writ of 10 October 1996 had
reached the Bratislava 5th District Court (see
paragraph 10 above), and 14 August 2000, when the applicant
reacted to the debtor’s objection (see paragraph 11
above), was imputable to the applicant. The applicant conceded that
this period could be attributed to her; however, she maintained that
the overall length of the proceedings was still unacceptable.
- The period to be taken into consideration began on 29
April 1996 and ended on 1 June 2005. It thus lasted more than nine
years for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- 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], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one
in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- 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 case. Having regard to its case-law on the
subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of
the proceedings was excessive – notwithstanding the delay
imputable to the applicant – and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The applicant also complained that the proceedings
before the Slovak authorities had also been protracted and,
furthermore, that the Hungarian courts’ inefficient conduct had
amounted to a virtual denial of her right to recover the outstanding
maintenance payments. She relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the
Convention.
- As regards the role played by the Slovak authorities
in the case, the Court observes that this was in essence limited to
the period between 7 June 1994 and 4 March 1996 (see
paragraphs 7 and 9 above). For the Court, no unreasonable delay
occurred during this time. Moreover, concerning the outcome of the
proceedings before the Hungarian authorities, the Court observes
that, ultimately, the applicant’s claim to have the Slovak
court decisions enforced was accepted by the Hungarian courts and
they proceeded to the execution phase. In these circumstances, the
applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of her
Convention rights in relation to the enforcement of her claim. It
follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to
Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The applicant claimed 450,000 Slovak crowns
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The Government contested the claim.
- The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis and
taking into account that the applicant also caused some delay, it
awards her 5,000 euros (EUR) under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The applicant made no claim under this head.
C. Default interest
- 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
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the Hungarian proceedings admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention by Hungary;
- Holds
(a) that this respondent State is to pay the applicant,
within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final
in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention, EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of
Hungary at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any
tax that may be chargeable;
(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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s
claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 October 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé J.-P. Costa
Registrar President
