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 LANTOS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 33807/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
March 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lantos v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
President,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 February 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 33807/07) 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 a
Hungarian national, Mr Iván Lantos (“the applicant”),
on 31 July 2007.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
- On
9 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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Budapest.
- On
20 December 1994 the applicant's mother died in hospital. In April
2000 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the
hospital, the head of the hospital, his mother's doctor and finally a
nurse, requesting the court to establish a violation of his privacy
rights in relation to his mother's treatment in hospital and to order
the respondents to surrender all medical documentation related to her
treatment.
- In
its interlocutory judgment of 26 February 2002 the Pest Central
District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for non-pecuniary
damages. This judgment was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on
21 November 2002.
- In
the course of the resumed proceedings, one of the respondents died on
22 December 2002. The proceedings were thus discontinued in this
respect pending the establishment of the heirs.
- On
19 June 2003 the District Court partly found for the applicant. This
judgment was reversed by the Budapest Regional Court, which dismissed
his action on 13 January 2004, finding inter alia that the
applicant was not able to prove that a particular image of computer
tomography, deemed to be of crucial importance, was in the possession
of the respondent hospital – if it existed at all.
- The
proceedings continued thereafter solely in respect of the doctor who
had once been in charge of the applicant's mother. Since this doctor
had meanwhile died (see paragraph 7 above), her legal successors
entered the case on 3 January 2005. The Pest Central District Court
dismissed the applicant's action in this respect on 4 November
2005, which was finally upheld by the review bench of the Supreme
Court on 21 February 2007. The courts found inter alia that
the late doctor or her successors held no personal liability in the
circumstances and that, in any event, the respondent hospital
(against which the applicant's action had already been dismissed, see
paragraph 8 above) could not have possibly been ordered to release
the image in question since it had been made and preserved in another
institution. The judgment was served on the applicant on 5 April
2007.
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 this
argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 17 April 2000 and
ended on 5 April 2007. It thus lasted six years and eleven months
before 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, 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 finds that the applicant's submissions do not
disclose any indication that the courts lacked impartiality, or that
the proceedings were otherwise unfair. Moreover, the Court is
satisfied that the courts' findings concerning the release of the
medical files in question, and in particular that of the image of
computer tomography, do not indicate any appearance of arbitrariness,
especially in view of the fact that the applicant had never sought
its release from the hospital where it had actually been taken. 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 25,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested
the claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained
some non-pecuniary damage and awards him EUR 2,400 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 2,652 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 applicant, who was not represented by a
lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 in respect of all costs incurred.
- 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
2,400 (two thousand four 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 1 March 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ireneu
Cabral Barreto
Deputy Registrar President
