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 BÉLA SZABÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 37470/06)
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 Béla Szabó 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. 37470/06) 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 Béla
Szabó (“the applicant”), on 5 June 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Gy. Szőllős, a lawyer
practising in Salgótarján. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L.
Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
14 February 2008 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It
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 lives in Salgótarján.
- On
29 September 1999 the applicant's employer brought an action against
him, alleging a deficient inventory.
- On
15 May 2001 the Salgótarján Labour Court found for the
plaintiff, after having held several hearings.
- On
25 October 2001 the Nógrád County Regional Court upheld
this decision. On 27 November 2002 the Supreme Court quashed these
judgments and remitted the case to the Labour Court.
- In
the resumed proceedings, on 27 January 2005 the Labour Court again
found for the plaintiff, after having held several hearings and
obtained the opinions of experts.
- On
26 May 2005 the Regional Court amended this decision.
- On
15 September 2005 the applicant's petition for review reached the
Supreme Court. Although section 273(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure
prescribes a 60-day time-limit for the preliminary examination of a
petition, it only took place on 12 April 2006. On that date a single
judge decided, in a 6-page decision which was reasoned in detail,
that the applicant's petition did not disclose a breach of the
relevant law, in particular the rules concerning the interpretation
of expert opinions. Although the decision was given in a procedure
nominally as to the admissibility of the petition, in fact it dealt
with the merits of the applicant's case. The Supreme Court's order
was served on him on 29 May 2006.
- The
applicant filed a complaint alleging that, because of the
non-observance of the 60-day time-limit, the single judge had no
longer been entitled to reject his petition and a hearing should have
been held.
- On
6 July 2006 the Head of the Supreme Court's Labour-Law Collegium
rejected the applicant's complaint. She explained that the delay was
due to the Supreme Court's backlog of cases and that section 273(4)
could not be interpreted to the effect that the delay had entailed an
obligation on the Supreme Court's part to hold a hearing.
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 26 May 2005 and that the
application had been introduced only on 5 June 2006, 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 29 May 2006, 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 29 September 1999 and
ended on 29 May 2006. It thus lasted six years and eight months
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 13 that, because of the
delayed processing of his case, it should have been examined by the
Supreme Court at a hearing, rather than rejected by a single judge in
so-called preliminary proceedings.
- Assuming
the applicability of Article 13, the Court recalls at the outset that
the effectiveness of a remedy within the meaning of Article 13 does
not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant
(Sürmeli v. Germany [GC], no. 75529/01, § 98,
ECHR 2006 ....). It notes the explanation given by the Head of
the Supreme Court's Labour-Law Collegium (see paragraph 12
above) according to which the impugned delay was due to the Supreme
Court's backlog of cases and that section 273(4), on which the
applicant's had based his complaint, could not be interpreted to the
effect that the delay experienced had entailed an obligation on the
Supreme Court's part to hold a hearing. In these circumstances –
and in the absence of any appearance of arbitrariness – the
Court is satisfied that this complaint of the applicant was based on
a misunderstanding of the domestic law. It follows that it 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 6,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- 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
1,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court.
- 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. The Court notes that the applicant's costs
claim has not been substantiated by any relevant documents and must
therefore be rejected.
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, EUR 1,200 (one
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'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
