[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF MÁRTA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 42542/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29
April 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 Márta v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Antonella
Mularoni,
President,
Rıza
Türmen,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 42542/04) 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 a Hungarian national, Mr Péter
Márta (“the applicant”), on 5 October 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr R. Horváth, a lawyer
practising in Kiskunhalas. The Hungarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl,
Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
5 December 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 1955 and lives in Kiskunhalas.
- In
July 1995 the applicant, together with six other individuals, filed a
criminal report against Mr C., accusing him of fraud. In the ensuing
criminal proceedings, the applicant, acting as a civil party, pursued
compensation claims.
- Until
the termination of the investigations on 13 August 1996, 51 witnesses
were heard and several items of physical evidence were collected.
- A
bill of indictment was preferred on 3 March 1997. The defendants, of
whom by then there were eight, were charged with twenty-nine counts
of fraud. On 14 January 1999 the President of the Kecskemét
District Court gave the case priority.
- After
45 hearings, on 13 April 2005 the District Court gave judgment. It
convicted, inter alia, Mr C. and obliged him to pay the
applicant, one of the eleven civil parties in the case by then, three
million Hungarian forints in compensation. The judgment was served on
18 June and became final on 27 June 2005. However, since Mr C. had
meanwhile become insolvent, the applicant could not recover the
damage he had sustained.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings –
in which compensation claims he had submitted as a civil party were
determined – had been incompatible with the “reasonable
time” requirement of in 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 in July 1995 and ended on
27 June 2005. It thus lasted nearly ten years for one level 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).
- 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 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 19,157,000 Hungarian forints
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
11,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no costs claim.
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 11,200
(eleven 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 29 April 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Antonella Mularoni
Registrar President
