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 SZENTESI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 19558/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12
June 2012
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Szentesi 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 22 May 2012,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 19558/09) 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 Sándor Szentesi (“the
applicant”), on 6 April 2009.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public
Administration and Justice.
- On
13 April 2011 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 1935 and lives in Budapest.
- On
31 August 1999 the Budapest and Pest County Regional Pension
Insurance Directorate established the applicant’s service years
and the amount of his old age pension. The applicant appealed,
challenging the amount of service years recognised. The
second-instance administrative authority accepted the claim in part
on 6 January 2000. This decision was later modified slightly ex
officio to the applicant’s advantage on 23 February 2000.
- On
13 April 2000 the applicant sought judicial review against the
Pension Insurance Directorate’s decision before the Budapest
Labour Court. The court dismissed his action on 25 March 2004.
- The
applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which
quashed the Labour Court’s judgment and remitted the case to
the first-instance court on 1 February 2005.
- In
the resumed proceedings the Labour Court again dismissed the
applicant’s action on 16 November 2007. The Supreme Court
upheld the first-instance judgment on 24 November 2008, which was
served on the applicant on 7 January 2009.
- The
domestic courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of two
forensic accountant experts and testimonies of the parties.
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 that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began in September 1999 and
ended on 7 January 2009. It thus lasted nine years and four 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.
- 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 (a) and must be
rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- Moreover,
the applicant complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention,
that the domestic courts had not taken into consideration the
evidence submitted by him and the deficiencies of the expert reports.
The Court observes that this complaint raises no separate issue as
the one examined under Article 6 of the Convention and should
therefore also be declared inadmissible.
- Lastly,
the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that due
to the fact that the authorities had deducted his debts from his
wife’s income, his wife divorced him. Even assuming
interference by the domestic authorities, the Court finds no direct
link between the measure in question and the prejudice suffered. It
follows that this complaint should therefore likewise be declared
inadmissible.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 20,000 euros
(EUR) in respect of pecuniary and 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 8,000.
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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, to
be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the
date of settlement, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax
that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 12 June 2012, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović Deputy
Registrar President
