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 HEGYI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 9254/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hegyi v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub
Popović,
President,
András
Sajó,
Paulo
Pinto de Albuquerque,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 24 May 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 9254/07) 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, Ms Zsuzsanna Beatrix Hegyi (“the
applicant”), on 8 February 2007.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by M 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 1949 and lives in Martonvásár.
- On
28 August 1995 the applicant filed for divorce with the
Székesfehérvár District Court. After obtaining
several forensic expert opinions, it dissolved the applicant’s
marriage, established the amount of child maintenance and divided the
matrimonial property on 4 February 2000.
- On
19 October 2000 the Fejér County Regional Court brought a
partial judgment concerning the sum of child maintenance, and
remitted the remainder of the case.
- In
the resumed proceedings the Székesfehérvár
District Court delivered a judgment on 5 November 2005. On appeal,
the Fejér County Regional Court finally divided the
matrimonial property on 22 June 2006. This judgment was served on the
applicant on 10 August 2006.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She
also invoked Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.
The Government contested that argument. The Court considers that the
application should be examined under Article 6 § 1 alone.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 28 August 1995 and
ended on 10 August 2006. It thus lasted ten years and eleven months
for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings,
the application 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 3,000,000
Hungarian forints (HUF) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The
Government contested the claim. Having regard to what was at stake in
the dispute, the Court awards her the full amount claimed, i.e.
EUR 11,000.
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 2,260,436 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 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
11,000 (eleven thousand 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 14 June 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
