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 LÁSZLÓ MOLNÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 41063/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
March 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of László Molnár 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 22 February 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 41063/07) 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 László Molnár
(“the
applicant”), on 20 September 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by Ms M. Czeglédy, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
- On
5 May 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 1942 and lives in Budapest.
- On
15 September 1989 the applicant brought an action against a private
individual before the Pest Central District Court, seeking to recover
the possession of some specific movable property.
- After
several hearings, a judgment was delivered on 19 November 1992,
which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on
14 September 1993.
- In
the resumed proceedings several forensic expert opinions were
obtained. Two hearings had to be rescheduled as the applicant and his
representative failed to appear, despite having been duly summoned.
On 3 June 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 11
October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case.
- The
District Court delivered a partial judgment on 12 April 2006, which
was decided on appeal by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.
- In
respect of the respondent's counterclaim, the first-instance court
delivered a judgment on 7 July 2006 which was upheld by the Regional
Court on 22 March 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
view.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began
only 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 case had been pending for three years and one month on that
date. The period in question ended on 22 March 2007. It thus lasted
altogether seventeen years and six months before two levels of
jurisdiction, out of which fourteen years and four months following
ratification of the Convention by Hungary.
- 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 30,000 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 14,400 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 5,500 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 the sum of EUR 1,000 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 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
14,400 (fourteen thousand four 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 15 March 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ireneu Cabral Barreto
Deputy
Registrar President
