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 BARÁTI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 44413/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11
January 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Baráti 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 7 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 44413/05) 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 Péter Baráti (“the
applicant”), on 9 December 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr B. Halmos, a lawyer practising in
Hatvan. 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 1975 and lives in Hatvan.
- In
February 1999 the applicant was dismissed from his job; his former
employer also required him to make certain payments in respect of
damage allegedly caused while in service. The applicant challenged
these measures before the courts as of 16 March 1999.
- On
14 September 1999 the Eger Labour Court dismissed his action. On 8
February 2000 the Heves County Regional Court quashed this decision
and remitted the case.
- The
resumed proceedings were suspended on 26 March 2000 pending the
simultaneous criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant.
After the termination of this case, the procedure restarted and the
Labour Court gave judgment on 9 March 2004, dismissing the
applicant's claims.
- On
appeal, on 28 May 2004 the Regional Court, in a partial judgment,
accepted some of the applicant's claims, holding that his dismissal
had been unlawful and reducing the reimbursement payable.
- However,
on 18 May 2005 the Supreme Court reversed this decision, dismissed
the applicant's case and upheld the District Court's judgment. This
decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 22 June 2005.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” of Article 6 §
1 of the Convention. The Government did not express a view on the
matter.
- The
period to be taken into consideration lasted six years and three
months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy
proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
- The
Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment
disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992,
Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 17). It 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 under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome
of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to
concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the
proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that,
according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the
observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties
to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with
errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless
and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms
protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the
Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay
down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should
be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by
national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v.
Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I). In the
present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's submissions
do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality,
or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected,
pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 10,151,447
Hungarian forints
(HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 5,000,000
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
1,600 under that head, having regard to what was at stake in the
litigation.
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 378,000
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court. 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 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 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,
the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
1,600 (one thousand six 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 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 11 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
