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 ECOPREVENT KFT v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 5194/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
October 2008
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 Ecoprevent Kft v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar.
Having
deliberated in private on 16 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 5194/07) 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, Pepszolg Kft “V.A.” (an entity in winding-up,
represented by an administrator), on 13 January
2007. While the proceedings were pending before the
Court, another Hungarian limited
liability company, Ecoprevent Kft (“the
applicant company”) became its successor.
- The
applicant company was represented by Mr G. Havas, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On 9 January 2008
the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits
of the application at the same time as its admissibility
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant is a limited liability company, founded in 2006, with its
seat in Budapest.
- On
10 August 1992 its predecessor (see paragraph 1 above) requested the
Budapest Regional Court to issue an order for payment against another
company.
- The
court ordered the respondent to make a payment of 61,369 Hungarian
forints (approximately 250 euros (EUR)). Since the latter contested
the order, on 5 April 1993 the proceedings became litigation.
- After
having held three hearings, the Regional Court found for the
plaintiff in April 1995. On appeal, the Supreme Court quashed this
decision in October 1996 and remitted the case to the first-instance
court.
- Between
6 February 1998 and 13 July 2003 the proceedings were stayed, pending
the plaintiff's identifying the respondent's legal successor. After
the latter had finally entered the proceedings, a procedural dispute
evolved, at the end of which, apparently in February 2006, the
Regional Court noted that, since the original respondent had ceased
to exist on 1 April 1993, the proceedings had been interrupted
on that date. Thus, all the actions of the parties and all the
decisions delivered by the courts after that date were invalid.
- Eventually,
in November 2006 the Regional Court ordered the resumption of the
proceedings and transferred the case to the Pest Central District
Court, which had acquired jurisdiction to hear the case due to an
amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure.
- On
20 February 2007 the District Court allowed the applicant company to
replace the original plaintiff.
- On
5 December 2007 the District Court found for the applicant company.
None of the parties appealed and the decision became final on
22 January 2008.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant company complained that the proceedings had lasted an
unreasonably long time. It relied on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of
the Convention. The Court considers that this issue falls to be
examined from the perspective of the “reasonable time”
requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alone, 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 the applicant company's claim.
- The
period to be taken into consideration only began on 5 November 1992,
when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition
took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time
that elapsed after 5 November 1992, account must be taken of the
state of proceedings at that stage. The Court observes that the case
had already been pending for nearly three months by then.
The
period in question ended on 5 December 2007; it thus lasted
altogether fifteen years and one month. However, the period between
6 February 1998 and 13 July 2003 (see paragraph 8 above) (over
five years and five months) – during which time the identity of
the respondent's successor was not being submitted by the predecessor
of the applicant company – cannot be imputed to the State and
must be deducted from the overall length. The relevant length is
therefore nine years and eight months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government argued that Pepszolg Kft “V.A.”, a company in
liquidation, was represented in the proceedings before the Court by
its administrator. In their view, the latter cannot claim to be a
victim of a violation of the Convention rights of Pepszolg Kft
“V.A.”.
- The
applicant company pointed out that Ecoprevent Kft had become the
successor of Pepszolg Kft “V.A.”; therefore, the legal
position of the latter's administrator was irrelevant.
- The
Court notes that Pepszolg Kft “V.A.” was replaced by the
applicant company in the domestic proceedings and it is this latter
entity that has pursued its claims before the Court. Therefore, it is
satisfied that the status of the administrator of Pepszolg Kft “V.A.”
has no bearing on the present applicant's claims. It follows that the
Government's objection must be dismissed. Furthermore, the Court
notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention or 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
application (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 circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject,
the Court finds 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant company further complained that the length of the
proceedings had infringed its 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
20 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, judgment of
19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
Court observes that the applicant company also complained under
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the outcome and of the
unfairness of the proceedings. It notes however that the District
Court eventually found for the applicant company, therefore it cannot
claim to be a victim in this respect. Accordingly, this part of the
application should be rejected as being incompatible ratione
personae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.
IV. 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 company claimed EUR 19,200 in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any casual link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant company
EUR 3,200 for non-pecuniary damages.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant company made no costs claim.
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 complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings and the violation of property rights
admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine
separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the
Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant company, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 3,200 (three thousand two 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant
company's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
31. Françoise
Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
