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 LÁSZLÓ NÉMETH v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 30211/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
December 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 László Németh 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,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 30211/05) 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 László
Németh (“the applicant”), on 11 August 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
13 February 2008 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Szomód.
- In
the context of a real estate dispute, on 13 August 1993 the applicant
brought an action claiming partial ownership of a house.
- After
having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of two
experts, on 27 August 1998 the applicant was granted one fifth of the
property in question.
- On
appeal, on 17 March 1999 the Komárom-Esztergom County Regional
Court quashed this decision.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the Tata District Court held several
hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On 12 June 2003 it
gave judgment, granting the applicant partial ownership.
Simultaneously, it dissolved the common ownership thus created, gave
the part allocated to the applicant to the respondent, and ordered
the latter to compensate the former.
- On
appeal, on 4 February 2004 the Regional Court amended this decision
and gave a final judgment.
- The
applicant filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
- On
31 January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition in
preliminary proceedings. In a reasoned decision, it held that the
applicant's petition was inadmissible because it did not disclose a
breach of the relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the
termination of common ownership. The Supreme Court's order was served
on him on 17 February 2005.
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.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that final domestic decision in the case had
been given by the Regional Court on 4 February 2004 and that the
application had been introduced only on 11
August 2005, i.e. outside the six-month time-limit
prescribed in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant's
petition for review, rejected by the Supreme Court in the
admissibility phase, could not be regarded as an effective remedy and
did not, in their view, influence the running of the time-limit.
The
applicant contested that view.
- The
Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination of the
reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into
account all instances which could have had an influence on the
outcome of the case (see Maria de Lurdes Rosa Marques and
Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In
this connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court,
served on the applicant on 17 February 2005, and which dealt
with the merits of the applicant's petition for review and adopted a
reasoned decision in the matter, constituted the final domestic
decision in the present application. The Government's objection must
therefore be rejected. Moreover, the Court considers 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
period to be taken into consideration began on 13 August 1993 and
ended on 17 February 2005. It thus lasted eleven and a half
years, for three levels of jurisdiction.
- 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the
domestic courts had awarded him only money rather than actual partial
ownership.
- The
Court observes that the domestic courts adjudicated a civil-law
dispute between private parties and that no deprivation of property
by a State body took place. In the absence of any appearance of
arbitrariness, the Court considers that the applicant's submissions
do not disclose any indication of a violation of his rights under
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It follows that this complaint 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
applicant claimed 25,373 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage
and EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- The
Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR
8,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 13,350 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 1,650 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court.
- The
Government contested these claims.
- 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
rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings
and considers it reasonable to award the entirety of the sum claimed
in respect of the proceedings before the Court.
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 in accordance with
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
8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage,
(ii) EUR
1,650 (one thousand six hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable to the applicant, 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 9 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
