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 SZŐKE v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 22736/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5
February 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 Szőke v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
András
Baka,
Riza
Türmen,
Mindia
Ugrekhelidze,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
judges,
Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 22736/04) 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 two Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Károly Szőke (“the
applicants”), on 21 April 2004.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr Zs. Zétényi, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
2 October 2006 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicants were born in 1934 and 1937 respectively and live in
Budapest.
- In
1981 the applicants, as a courtesy, permitted their neighbour to
connect his house to the pipeline supplying their house with water.
However, in 1992 they wished to terminate the courtesy use of their
water system.
- In
the resultant litigation, which started on 27 March 1992, the Vác
District Court dismissed the applicants' action on 4 March 1993. This
decision was quashed by the Pest County Regional Court on 11 November
1993.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the opinion of an expert was obtained on 26
January 1996. On 23 April 1996 the District Court invited the
respondent to bring another action with a view to having a servitude
registered in his favour. He did so on 8 May 1996. The cases were
joined on 10 October 1997.
- After
several hearings, on 23 February 1999 the District Court dismissed
both the applicants' claim to have the neighbour's water connection
removed and the latter's claim to establish a servitude. It ordered
the neighbour to pay a fee for the use of the applicants' land.
- On
appeal, on 5 October 2000 the Pest County Regional Court upheld this
decision in essence, but modified the amount of the fee payable. On
29 October 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants'
petition for review. This decision was served on 25 March 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants 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 only 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 that date, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings beforehand. The Court observes that the proceedings had
already lasted over seven months on that date.
The
period in question ended on 25 March 2004. It thus lasted over eleven
years and four months for three 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicants also complained that the continuing presence of the
neighbour's pipeline on their land, as sanctioned by the courts,
amounted to an interference with their right to respect for their
home, enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention.
- Even
assuming that there has been an interference with the applicants'
Article 8 rights, the Court considers that the contested measure,
undisputedly lawful, was justified for the purposes of Article 8 §
2 of the Convention as pursuing the legitimate aim of protecting the
rights of others. It follows that this part of the application is
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
applicants, jointly, claimed 2 million Hungarian forints
(approximately 7,917 euros (EUR)) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government accepted this claim.
- The
Court considers that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants 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 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 applicants, jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 7,917 (seven thousand nine hundred and seventeen euros) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 5 February 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
