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 HATALA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 35569/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
November 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hatala 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 9 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 35569/05) 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 László Hatala (“the
applicant”), on 26 September 2005.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
- On
22 June 2009 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 allocated to a Committee of three judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
Proceedings “A”
- On
17 August 1994 Mr E.H. brought an action against the applicant before
the Pest Central District Court seeking the vacation of a real
property. After several hearings, on 30 November 1999 a judgment was
delivered. On 10 November 2000 the Budapest Regional Court quashed
this decision and remitted the case.
- In
the resumed proceedings, hearings were held on 8 January, 28 March,
14 June, 22 October 2002 and 24 January 2003. On 23 May 2003 a
judgment was adopted. On 17 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld
this decision.
- On
31 March 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition
for review in a reasoned decision, holding that the second-instance
judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the
merits of the case. This decision was served on 1 June 2005.
Proceedings “B”
- On
3 December 1996 the same plaintiff brought an action against the
applicant before the District Court, challenging his disinheritance.
On 13 and 27 November 1997, 24 March, 2 July and 26 November 1998
hearings were held. On the latter date an interim judgment was
adopted. On appeal, the Regional Court held a hearing on 30 September
1999. On 24 February 2000 it partly upheld the interim ruling
and partly remitted the case.
- In
the resumed proceedings, on 31 October 2000 the District Court held a
hearing and appointed a graphology expert. He filed his opinion on 10
January 2001. On 27 March, 13 November 2001 and 23 April 2002
hearings took place. Subsequently, the opinions of two more experts
were obtained. Further hearings were held on 28 January, 6 May, 30
September 2003, 11 May 2004, 25 January and 19 April 2005, 8
February, 8 March, 10 April, 24 May, 12 July, 11 September and 6
October 2006.
- On
13 October 2006 the District Court gave judgment, partly finding for
the plaintiff. On 14 June 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the
appeals. On 6 November 2007 the Supreme Court refused to deal with
the applicant's petition for review, since the value of the dispute
was under the statutory threshold.
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, arguing in particular that the application was introduced
out of time in respect of proceedings “A”, the final
domestic decision being the one given by the Regional Court on 17
September 2004, whereas the application was introduced only on 26
September 2005, i.e. more than six months later (cf. Article 35 §
1 of the Convention).
12. The
Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination
of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into
account all instances which could have had an influence on the
outcome of the case (see Maria de Lurdes Rosa Marques and Others
v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this
connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, served
on the applicant on 1 June 2005, and which dealt with the merits of
the applicant's petition for review and adopted a reasoned decision
in the matter, constituted the final domestic decision with regard to
proceedings “A” (Béla Szabó v.
Hungary, no. 37470/06, § 16, 9 December 2008). The
Government's objection must therefore be rejected. Moreover, the
Court considers 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.
- In
proceedings “A”, the period to be taken into
consideration began on 17 August 1994 and ended on 1 June 2005. It
thus lasted over ten years and nine months for three levels of
jurisdiction. In proceedings “B”, the period to be taken
into account commenced on 3 December 1996 and ended on 6 November
2007. It thus lasted ten years and eleven months. Of this time, the
approximately five-month period corresponding to the applicant's
futile petition for review, which was excluded by the law, must be
imputed to him. The remaining length is ten years and six months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
- 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 applicant claimed 12,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested
this claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have
sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it
awards him EUR 10,400 under that head.
- The
applicant also claimed 82,960 Hungarian forints (HUF)
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
HUF 136,400
for those incurred before the Court, the latter item corresponding to
legal advice taken and mailing expenses, and being partly supported
by invoices. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its
case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the
domestic proceedings and awards the entirety of those incurred before
it, i.e. EUR 490.
- 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,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
10,400 (ten thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
490 (four hundred ninety 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 30 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
