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 BARTAL v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 8226/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
July 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bartal v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András
Sajó,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and
Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 8226/07) 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 two Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Antal Bartal (“the
applicants”), on 6 January 2007.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr L. Dvorák, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
- On
8 February 2010 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14,
the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1947 and live in Érd.
- On
6 January 1991 the applicants and others brought an action before the
Buda Surroundings District Court for ascertainment and designation of
the boundary of a real property. On 7 November and 11 December 1991
hearings were held.
- On
15 September 1994 and 7 July 1995 further hearings took place and, on
12 July 1994, an expert was appointed who filed his opinion on
22 August 1995.
- On
27 March 1996 the applicants instituted land registry proceedings
seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan.
- On
20 March 1996 a hearing was held. On 2 April 1996 the court gave
judgment.
- On
appeal, on 5 June 1997 the Pest County Regional Court held a hearing
and suspended the case pending the land registry proceedings.
- Subsequently,
on 6 April 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing and again suspended
the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry
proceedings which had been reopened in the meantime.
- On
7 February 2006 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings yet
another time, pending an action concerning the rectification of the
title plan, still in progress before the Budaörs District Court.
- The
case is pending before the Regional 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
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. The Court notes that the case had already
been pending for one year and ten months on that day. The period in
question has not yet ended. It has thus lasted seventeen years and
eight months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy
proceedings, 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, among many other authorities, 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, jointly,
400,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage and
HUF 4,000,000 in respect of 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, it considers that the
applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and that it
should award them, jointly, the full sum claimed, i.e. the equivalent
of EUR 14,400.
- The
applicants also claimed HUF 2,040,000 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government
contested the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its
possession and according to its case-law, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all
heads.
- 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 applicants, jointly, within three
months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints
at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
14,400 (fourteen thousand four hundred 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 applicants, 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
