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 SINKÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 3925/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 June
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 Sinkó 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 Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 May 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 3925/05) 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, Mrs Károlyné Sinkó
(“the applicant”), on 29 December 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr P. Gál, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and
Law Enforcement.
- On
27 February 2008 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).
- On
11 March 2009 Mr István Sinkó and Mr János
Frühling, the applicant's sons, informed the Registry that the
applicant had died in 2007. They stated that they were the
applicant's statutory heirs and that they wished to pursue the case.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1914 and lived in Budapest.
- On
12 October 1999 the applicant brought an action in compensation
against the Hungarian State and a commercial bank before the Pest
Central District Court. This court held several hearings; however, in
the period between 17 May 2001 and 4 September 2003, only one hearing
took place. The District Court partly found for the applicant on 14
January 2004.
- Dissatisfied
with the award, the applicant appealed. The Budapest Regional Court
dismissed her appeal on 17 December 2004. On
26 July 2005 the
Supreme Court dismissed her petition for review.
THE LAW
- The
applicant 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 accepts that the applicant's sons are entitled to take her
place (see, for example, Vocaturo v. Italy, 24 May 1991,
Series A no. 206-C, § 2; X. v. France, 31 March 1992,
Series A no. 234-C, § 26; G. v. Italy, 27 February
1992, Series A no. 228-F, § 2; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v.
Italy, 27 February 1992, Series A no. 231-B, § 2). However,
the examination of the admissibility and merits of the case must be
limited to the question whether or not the complaint as originally
submitted by Mrs Sinkó, who remains the applicant,
discloses a violation of the Convention.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration lasted
over five years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. In
view of such lengthy proceedings and the fact that the District Court
held only one hearing in the period between 17 May 2001 and 4
September 2003, the application 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 e.g. 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 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant had originally claimed
3,200 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government
contested the claim which was maintained by the applicant's heirs.
- The
Court considers that the applicant's sons are entitled to
compensation for the non-pecuniary damage which their mother must
have sustained. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them,
jointly, EUR 1,200 under that head. Moreover, it 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's heirs, jointly, within
three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 1,200
(one 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 claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 June 2009, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
