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 SCHWARTZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 5766/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3
November 2009
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 Schwartz and Others v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 October 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 5766/05) 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 three Hungarian nationals, Mrs Lászlóné
Schwartz, Mr Márton Schöffer and Mr László
Schöffer (“the applicants”), on 8 February
2005.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
4 February 2009 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was 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
applicants were born in 1944, 1952 and 1956, and live in
Pilisvörösvár and Pilisszentiván,
respectively.
- The
first applicant, Mrs Schwartz, became a party to a real estate
dispute, originating in 1994 and pending before the Buda Surroundings
District Court, on 17 May 1995. A first-instance judgment was quashed
by the Pest County Regional Court in 1999.
- Apart
from certain short periods during which the case was suspended,
expert opinions were obtained by the court and numerous hearings took
place at regular intervals until 11 December 2003.
- On
19 March 2004 the case was stayed because one of the plaintiffs died.
On 27 September 2004 the second and third applicants joined the
proceedings as successors of the deceased party. According to the
information available in the case file, the case is still pending
before the first instance court.
THE LAW
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that
argument.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration in
respect of the first applicant has so far lasted over fourteen years
and five months. Of this time, six months corresponding to the stay
of the proceedings in 2004, not imputable to the State, must be
deducted. However, the remaining period still exceeds thirteen years
and eleven months for two levels of jurisdiction. Moreover, the
period to be taken into consideration in respect of the second and
third applicants has so far lasted over five years and one month for
one level of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this
complaint must be declared admissible.
- 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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants claimed non-pecuniary
damage of an unspecified amount. (They made no claim for costs and
expenses.) The Government contested the damages claim. The Court
considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the first applicant
12,800 euros (EUR), and the second and third applicants EUR 4,000
each. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the proceedings in
question are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court
considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be to bring
them to a conclusion as soon as possible, by conducting them in
accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention (see, Uğuz v. Turkey, no. 31932/03, § 30,
13 December 2007).
- 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, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention,
(i) EUR
12,800 (twelve thousand eight hundred euros) to the first applicant
and
(ii) EUR
4,000 (four thousand euros) to each of the second and third
applicants,
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 amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 November 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
