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 MUITY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 31802/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17
July 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 Muity 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 Mrs Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 31802/04) 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 Antal
Muity
(“the applicant”), on 26 July 2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
17 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Baja.
- On
27 January 1997 the applicant's wife filed for divorce.
- After
several hearings, on 5 October 1999 the Pest Central District Court
pronounced the parties' divorce, placed the couple's daughter with
the mother, ordered the applicant to pay maintenance and suspended
his right of access to his child, as he suffered from paranoid
psychosis and, in the court's view, his conduct was unpredictable.
- On
25 May 2000 the Budapest Regional Court upheld part of this decision
but remitted certain questions, in particular those concerning
maintenance and the applicant's visiting rights, to the District
Court.
- The
first-instance proceedings were resumed on 23 April 2001. The
applicant was subjected to an examination by an expert psychiatrist,
in whose opinion his access to the child was feasible only under
supervision, given his mental state.
- On
17 October 2001 the court held a hearing and issued an order
concerning the applicant's access rights. This decision was quashed
on appeal on 16 May 2002.
- After
several hearings, on 27 June 2003 the District Court issued an order
allowing the applicant to meet his daughter once a month for two
hours on the premises of a specialised foundation. Relying on the
opinion of the expert psychiatrist, it observed that the applicant's
ailment prevented him from having greater access to his daughter,
then eight years old. On 4 December 2003 the Budapest Regional
Court upheld this decision.
- On
25 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court determined the remainder
of the action concerning maintenance. In application of section 92(1)
of the Family Code, the court also recapitulated the applicant's
access rights, in that he was entitled to meet his daughter every
fourth Tuesday, on the premises of the foundation, supervised by a
professional.
- During
these proceedings, the applicant modified his claims on many
occasions and filed numerous submissions.
- On
9 December 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
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.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 27 January 1997 and
ended on 9 December 2004. It thus lasted over seven years and ten
months for two 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 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 civil status, what is at
stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration, and special
diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the
excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on the enjoyment of
the right to respect for family life (Laino v. Italy [GC],
no. 3158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I).
- 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,
even if the applicant contributed to the protraction of the
proceedings (see paragraph 12 above).
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Without
relying on any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant
also complained about the manner in which his access rights were
regulated.
- The
Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under
Article 8 of the Convention which provides, insofar as relevant, as
follows.
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, ...
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society ...
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.”
- The
Court considers that the interference in question, undoubtedly
lawful, pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of health and
morals, as well as the rights of others. Given that the applicant,
suffering from a serious mental ailment, was found to be fit to
exercise his access rights only under controlled circumstances, in
the Court's view the measure applied by the Hungarian courts can
reasonably be seen as necessary in a democratic society to achieve
that legitimate aim, and was thus justified under Article 8 § 2
of the Convention. 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
applicant claimed 200,000 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, it awards him
EUR 4,000 under that head, taking into account not only what was
at stake for him in the dispute, but also the fact that he
contributed to the protraction of the proceedings.
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 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 4,000 (four
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage, which sum is to be converted into the national
currency of the respondent State 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 17 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
