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 SASSNÉ SÁRI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 1056/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4
March 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 Sassné Sári v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Antonella
Mularoni,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 February 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 1056/05) 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, Ms Krisztina
Sassné Sári (“the applicant”), on 19
November 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Cs. Mester, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
3 May 2007 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bag.
- In
2000 the applicant divorced her husband. The ex-spouses had an
agreement about the placement of their son with the applicant.
However, on 20 August 2002 the ex-husband took the son with him on a
trip and did not return him to the applicant. Despite several
enforcement fines imposed on the father, the applicant's custody was
restored only on 27 March 2006.
- Meanwhile,
on 11 October 2002 the father introduced an action requesting custody
of the child.
- On
20 April 2005 the District Court, after having held several hearings
and obtained the opinion of an expert, adopted a decision, changing
the child's placement and granting custody to the father. On appeal,
on 1 September 2005 the Regional Court quashed this decision.
- In
the resumed proceedings, on 23 June 2006 the District Court, after
having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert,
again found for the father.
- On
8 February 2007 the Regional Court upheld this decision and ordered
the applicant to surrender the child to the father. This decision was
served on the applicant's lawyer on 12 March 2007.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- Relying
on Article 6 of the Convention and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7,
the applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
excessive. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be
examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as
relevant:
“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 on 11 October 2002 and
ended on 12 March 2007. It thus lasted 4 years and 5 months for two
levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application 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 cases relating to child custody, special
diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the
excessive length of proceedings may have, and, therefore, such issues
should be dealt with speedily (cf. Hokkanen v. Finland,
judgment of 23 September 1994, Series A no. 299 A,
pp. 25-26, §§ 69-72).
- 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 notes 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 considers 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. 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 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis and in view of
what was at stake for her in the dispute complained of, it awards her
EUR 2,800.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant 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 application admissible;
- 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 2,800 (two
thousand eight hundred 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 March 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally
Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
