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 MÉSZÁROS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 21317/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
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 Mészáros v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 30 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 21317/05) 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 Iván
Mészáros (“the applicant”), on 19 May 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Tóth, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
5 December 2007 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mezőtúr.
- In
July 1988 the applicant had a road accident and suffered serious
injuries resulting in permanent disability. On 7 January 1990 he
brought an action in compensation before the Mezőtúr
District Court against the company whose employee had caused the
accident and an insurance company.
- On
30 May 1995 the District Court, after having held five hearings and
obtained the opinions of various experts, found for the applicant and
awarded him 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately
4,000
euros (EUR)) in compensation. On appeal, the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok
County Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and
dismissed the applicant's action on 4 February 1997. The
applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 16
November 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition as
time-barred, without an examination on the merits.
- In
May 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings. In
September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant's request.
On appeal, the Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and
ordered the reopening of the case in December 1999.
- In
the reopened proceedings, the District Court upheld the Regional
Court's decision on 25 June 2002. The applicant appealed. The
Regional Court reversed the District Court's decision and found for
the applicant. Concerning the amount of compensation, the Regional
Court remitted the case to the first-instance court on 5 December
2002.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the District Court on 30 July 2003 awarded
the applicant HUF 450,000 (approximately 1,785 euros) in
compensation. On appeal, on 11 November 2004 the Regional Court
raised the amount to HUF 3,631,176 (approximately 14,408 euros) plus
accrued interest and ordered the defendants to pay a monthly
allowance of
HUF 38,857 (approximately 154 euros) to the
applicant. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 December
2004.
THE LAW
I. 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 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 thereafter, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings at that point. The Court observes that the proceedings
had already been pending by then for over twenty-one months.
- The
period in question ended on 7 December 2004. It thus lasted twelve
years and one month for two levels of jurisdiction. However,
the delay between the delivery of the first final decision and the
lodging of the applicant's request for reopening (that is, the period
from February 1997 until May 1999, nearly fifteen months which
included the futile review proceedings) should be deducted from the
overall length since it cannot be imputed to the Hungarian
authorities. Accordingly, the relevant period is ten years and ten
months.
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). In
connection with the latter point, special diligence is necessary in
disputes concerning the determination of compensation for victims of
road accidents (see, inter
alia,
Silva
Pontes
v. Portugal,
judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 286-A, p. 15,
§ 39).
- 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings
infringed his right to an effective remedy for his original,
substantive claim. However, the Court observes that thereby the
applicant complained essentially about the outcome of the
proceedings. However, Article 13 of the Convention is concerned with
the availability of effective procedures in relation to a Convention
claim, not the result of litigation, whether favourable or not for
the applicant. It follows that this part of the application, as
formulated by the applicant, must be rejected as being incompatible
ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.
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 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court awards the applicant, on an equitable basis, EUR 9,000 for
non-pecuniary damage, account also being taken of what was at stake
in the dispute.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. He filed an itemised statement of the hours
billable by his lawyer. According to this statement, the bill
corresponded to fifteen hours of work (consultation with clients,
seven hours; studying the file, eight hours; studying case-law, seven
and a half hours; drafting submissions, fifteen hours) spent by his
lawyer on the case, charged at an hourly rate of EUR 80.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
finds it reasonable to award EUR 500 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 proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)
EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 500 (five hundred euros) 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
