[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> PALASTI v. HUNGARY - 54244/10 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 416 (22 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/416.html Cite as: [2014] ECHR 416

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF PALÁSTI v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 54244/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

22 April 2014

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Palásti v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

     Helen Keller, President,
     András Sajó,
     Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2014,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 54244/10) 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 László Palásti (“the applicant”), on 15 September 2010.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr G. Révész, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.

3.  On 17 October 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.

4.  The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.

6.  On 16 June 1998 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and his associates for embezzlement and other offences.

On 7 June 2002 a bill of indictment was preferred.

7.  A first instance judgment was adopted on 17 November 2009. The Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court took into account as a mitigating factor the lapse of time and imposed only a fine.

This judgment was quashed on appeal.

8.  In the resumed proceedings, a first-instance judgment was adopted afresh, in which the lapse of time was again appreciated as a mitigating factor.

This judgment was also quashed on appeal.

9.  The case was then resumed before the Budapest High Court. On 23 April 2013 this court convicted the applicant and imposed only a fine, holding that the lapse of time was an important mitigating factor.

10.  An appeal by the public prosecutor is currently pending before the Budapest Court of Appeal.

THE LAW

11.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

12.  The Government contested that argument, arguing in particular that the applicant had lost his victim status because the courts having so far proceeded with his case had taken into account the lapse of time as a mitigating factor.

13.  The Court observes that the case against the applicant is still pending before the Court of Appeal. It considers that in these circumstances it is not possible to establish whether or not an eventual final mitigation of the applicant’s sentence, if convicted, would occur and provide sufficient redress for the alleged grievances. Consequently, the Court is satisfied that the applicant has retained his victim status; and the Government’s objection must be dismissed.

14.  The period to be taken into consideration began in 1998 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted almost sixteen years for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.

15.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present circumstances (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

16.  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 application. 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.

17.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage (lost salary) and EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

18.  The Government contested these claims.

19.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him the full sum claimed under this head.

20.  The applicant made no costs claim.

21.  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 application admissible;

 

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, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(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;

 

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Stanley Naismith                                                                    Helen Keller
       Registrar                                                                              President