In the case of Máté v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application (no. 9429/10) 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 Krisztián Máté (“the applicant”), on 10 February 2010. The applicant was represented by Ms I. Patócs, a lawyer practising in Tapolca.
The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
On 5 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Szombathely.
At the material time, he was serving his prison sentence for fraud and forgery of public documents.
On 20 December 2006 the applicant was interrogated as a suspect by the Budapest X District Police Department on charges of fraud. Subsequently, a bill of indictment was preferred.
On 2 June and 12 October 2010, 14 January, 22 April, 16 September 2011 and 24 February 2012 the Pest Central District Court held hearings. On 24 February 2012 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment.
The applicant lodged a petition for review against the judgment. On 11 October 2012 the Supreme Court declared the applicant’s petition inadmissible, without examining the merits, since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1. The Government contested that argument.
The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 December 2006 and ended on 11 October 2012. It thus lasted five years and ten months for one level of jurisdiction. From the period taken into consideration, eight months ─ the length of the review proceedings before the Supreme Court ─ are imputable to the applicant, since this motion initiated by him was futile, declared inadmissible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not examined on the merits. However, the remaining period still exceeds five years and two months for one level of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint 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, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
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 further complained about a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, alleging that his detention pending trial had been excessive. However, it is noted that during the course of the impugned criminal proceedings the applicant was serving a prison sentence based on a previous conviction in conformity with Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Thus, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a).
Lastly, the applicant complained, and this for the first time in his submissions of 27 May 2013, about the prison conditions during his detention at Budapest Prison up until 24 February 2012. The Court considers that, in respect of this complaint, the six-month period started to run on the latter date. However, this complaint was submitted only on 27 May 2013, that is, outside the six-month time-limit. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 60,000 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, on the basis of equity, EUR 2,200.
The applicant also claimed EUR 6,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before 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 for the proceedings before the Court.
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,
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. 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 2,200 (two thousand two 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Seçkin Erel Peer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
