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 SZTERGÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 16407/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22
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 Sztergár 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,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 July 2008,
Having
regard to the partial decision of 15 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16407/05) 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 Gusztáv
Sztergár (“the applicant”), on 15 April 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms E. Slezák, a lawyer practising
in Pécs. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
15 January 2008 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the liquidation
proceedings 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 was born in 1954 and lives in Pécs.
- The
applicant's employer went into liquidation on 8 October 1991. On 14
December 1991 the applicant was dismissed from his job and he
received 174,135 Hungarian forints (approximately 690 Euros) in
severance pay. The applicant's further claims against his former
employer were channelled into the ongoing liquidation procedure.
Ultimately, the review bench of the Supreme Court awarded him HUF
124,480 (approximately EUR 494) in compensation in 1997, which, as
far as it can be determined from the case file, was never paid to
him. Because of his abovementioned pending and registered claim
(hitelezői igény), he remained a “creditor”
and, therefore, a party to the proceedings.
- On
23 January 2006 the Baranya County Regional Court deleted the
applicant's former employer from the Company Register. In April 2006
the Pécs Court of Appeal ordered the stay of the proceedings
until the legal successor of the debtor joined the proceedings. The
applicant appealed against this decision.
- In
October 2006 the Supreme Court quashed the order and remitted the
case to the Court of Appeal. In January 2007 the Court of Appeal
indentified the legal successor of the debtor and continued the
liquidation proceedings which are still pending.
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 only on
5 November
1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual
petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the
time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state
of proceedings at the time since the case had already been pending
for almost a year by then. According to the information provided by
the parties and the elements in the case file to date, the period in
question has not yet ended. It thus has already lasted fifteen years
and seven 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.
- 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. 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 69,937 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
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, on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 16,000
for the non-pecuniary damages.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 4,462 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts or those 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. In the instant case, the applicant, who was
represented by a lawyer, submitted an itemised list of her own
expenses (postal, administrative and travel costs, etc.). Regard
being had to the information in its possession and the above
criteria, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000
covering costs under all heads.
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 remainder of the application,
concerning the excessive length of the proceedings, admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. 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 16,000 (sixteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)
EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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 22 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
