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
MEDGYES AND RUSZ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 14308/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 June
2010
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 Medgyes and Rusz v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 May 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 14308/07) 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 Gábor Medgyes and
Mr János
Rusz (“the applicants”), on 21 March 2007.
- The
applicants were represented by Ms S. Gabos, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
8 February 2010 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 1949 and 1941 respectively and live in
Budapest.
- On
27 May 1992 criminal proceedings were instituted against the
applicants. On 19 July 1994 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office
preferred a bill of indictment, charging them with fraud and forgery
of documents.
- On
9 January 2002 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the
applicants. On 12 November 2002 the Budapest Regional Court quashed
this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. In
the resumed proceedings, three hearings were held. On 7 September
2005 the District Court again acquitted the applicants. On 29
September 2006 the Regional Court upheld this decision.
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 did not contest
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 notes that the proceedings had
already been pending for several months on that date. The period in
question ended on 29 September 2006. It thus lasted almost thirteen
years and eleven months for two levels 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
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, each of the applicants claimed
12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government
did not express an opinion on the matter. The Court considers that
the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling
on an equitable basis, it awards them the full sum claimed.
- Moreover,
each of the applicants claimed EUR 1,000 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the Court. The Government did not express an opinion
on the matter.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been
shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were
reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to
the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court
considers it reasonable to award the applicants, jointly, the sum of
EUR 500 under this head.
- 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, the following amounts, to be converted into
Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
12,000 (twelve thousand euros) to each of the applicants, plus any
tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred euros) to the applicants jointly, 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 8 June 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
