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 RÓZSA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 22671/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
29
January 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 Rózsa v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
András
Baka,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Antonella
Mularoni,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
judges,
Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 22671/04) 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, Ms Márta
Rózsa (“the applicant”), on 6 April 2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
2 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
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Budapest.
- On
2 November 1990 the applicant brought, on behalf of her minor
daughter, a paternity claim against the child's purported father, a
man of German nationality and residence. She also sought the payment
of maintenance.
- After
several hearings, on 23 November 1992 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District
Court requested, as a measure of international legal assistance, the
German authorities to carry out a blood group test on the respondent.
The result was received by the court on 25 May 1994. On 9 January
1995 a medical expert opinion based on these results was submitted to
the court.
- On
18 April 1995 the court requested the German authorities to perform a
chromosome test on the respondent. Despite repeated reminders, the
requested samples did not arrive until 24 February 1999. On 7 April
1999 a further medical opinion based on the results was submitted to
the court.
- On
18 May 2000 the District Court found for the plaintiff, established
the respondent's paternity and ordered him to pay maintenance.
- On
19 December 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment in
a final decision. Subsequently, administrative proceedings were set
in motion in order to establish the daughter's family name.
- As
the father proved unwilling to comply voluntarily with the court
decisions, on 16 December 2002 the applicant requested the Pest
Central District Court to initiate enforcement proceedings against
him.
- On
3 June 2003 the case file reached the Ministry of Justice for further
action.
- On
8 December 2003 the Department of Private International Law within
the Ministry of Justice informed the applicant that the competent
German authority (“Bundesverwaltungsamt”) had
ordered the father to settle his debts.
- A
first payment was effected by the father in April 2004. It appears
that the payments were stopped in August 2006 because the daughter
had reached 18 years of age in September 2006, and a dispute then
arose as to whether the obligation to pay maintenance continued
because the daughter was still a full-time student.
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 only began 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. The Court observes that the proceedings had
already been pending for two years by that date.
- The
period in question ended on 8 December 2003, after which date Hungary
could no longer influence the outcome of the procedure. It thus
lasted over eleven years and one month. However, in the Court's view,
the periods between 23 November 1992 and 25 May 1994 and, moreover,
between 18 April 1995 and 24 February 1999 – totalling
five years and four months – also cannot be imputed to the
Hungarian authorities, since these delays corresponded to the
protracted German measures of legal assistance whose acceleration was
not in the Hungarian authorities' power. The relevant period is
therefore five years and nine months for two levels of jurisdiction,
as well as the enforcement phase.
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 this latter connection, the Court notes that
cases relating to civil status require special diligence 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. The Court notes in particular a one-year
period of total inactivity between 7 April 1999 and 18 May 2000.
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 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- 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 her EUR
1,500 under that head.
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 1,500 (one
thousand five 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 29 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
