[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KOKAVECZ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 39138/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
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 Kokavecz 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 Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 May 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 39138/05) 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 Pál
Kokavecz (“the applicant”), on 6 October 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms G. Futaki, a lawyer practising in
Békéscsaba. The Hungarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl,
Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
25 August 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
applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Békéscsaba.
- The
applicant's previous application (no. 27312/95) was declared
inadmissible by a Chamber on 20 April 1999. The subject matter of
that case was the prosecution of the applicant, in the course of
which he was arrested on a charge of incitement to murder on 21 March
1994. On
29 February 1996 the Békés County Regional
Court acquitted him of this charge but convicted him of an abuse of
firearms. On 29 January 1997 the Supreme Court re-qualified his
offence as an abuse of ammunition and reduced his sentence. On 9
December 2002 the Supreme Court's review bench acquitted the
applicant of the latter charge. Meanwhile, on 29 January 1999 the
Regional Court had ordered the applicant's retrial and found him
guilty of incitement to murder. On 11 January 2000 the Supreme
Court's appeal bench quashed this decision and remitted the case. In
the resumed proceedings, on 22 April 2002 the Pest County Regional
Court held that there was no reason to retry the applicant and upheld
his earlier acquittal.
- Meanwhile,
on 29 July 1997 the applicant brought a civil action in compensation
against the State for unjustified detention and a miscarriage of
justice. The Békés County Regional Court suspended the
case in 1998 pending the final outcome of the criminal case outlined
in the preceding paragraph. After the Supreme Court's decision of 9
December 2002, the Regional Court resumed the proceedings in February
2003 and gave judgment on 19 October 2004. On appeal, on 22
April 2005 the Szeged Court of Appeal reversed this decision,
increased the compensation payable to the applicant to 15,190,000
Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest, and reduced the
procedural fees payable by him. On 1 September 2005 the Supreme
Court dismissed his petition for review.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement
of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested
that argument, submitting that the suspension of the proceedings, a
measure in place for some four years, was inevitable in the
circumstances, and its duration should be deducted from the overall
length.
- The
Court observes that the criminal proceedings, with regard to which
the applicant's action in compensation was suspended between 1998 and
early 2003, themselves lasted over eight years and eight months for
three levels of jurisdiction. For the Court, this duration alone
raises concerns, even in a complex murder case. Consequently, the
necessity to suspend the case pending those criminal proceedings
cannot exculpate the authorities for the protraction of the
applicant's action in compensation.
- Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration began on 29 July 1997
and ended on 1 September 2005. It thus lasted eight years and
one month for three 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, 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.
- The
applicant also complained in essence that the award he received (see
paragraph 6 above) was insufficient; in this connection he relied on
Articles 5 § 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 and Article 3 of Protocol No. 7. For the Court, the
applicant, having received substantial compensation, can no longer
claim to be a victim in this respect. Moreover, the applicant
complained under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 that the criminal
proceedings conducted against him included a retrial, which in his
view had been unjustified in the circumstances. In this connection,
the Court observes that the criminal proceedings ended in 2002, i.e.
more than six months before the date of introduction. It follows that
these complaints must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§
1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed
HUF
4,509,815,000 in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 100,000,000 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 applicant must
have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable
basis, it awards him EUR 3,200 under that head.
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 5,000,000 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government
contested the claim.
- 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 sum of EUR 500 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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
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
3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred 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 15 June 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
