[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SZABO v. HUNGARY - 34254/10 - Committee Judgment [2014] ECHR 423 (22 April 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2014/423.html Cite as: [2014] ECHR 423

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

 

 

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF SZABÓ v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 34254/10)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

22 April 2014

 

 

 

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




In the case of Szabó 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. 34254/10) 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, Ms Zoltánné Szabó (“the applicant”), on 15 June 2010.

2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.

3.  On 9 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Balkány.

5.  On 11 November 2004 the applicant brought an action before the Debrecen Labour Court. She claimed that she had been unlawfully dismissed from public service.

6.  On 14 November 2007 the Labour Court found against her. Relying on various pieces of evidence, the court was satisfied that the reasons for the applicant’s dismissal were real and relevant.

7.  On 10 April 2008 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

8.  On 11 November 2009 the Supreme Court rejected her petition for review (service: 17 December 2009).

9.  The applicant’s criminal accusations made in the above context against third persons were to no avail.

THE LAW

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

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

11.  The Government contested that argument.

12.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 11 November 2004 and ended on 11 November 2009. It thus lasted five years for three levels of jurisdiction.

In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.

13.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (see Ruotolo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230-D).

14.  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 Frydlender, cited above).

15.  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.

16.  Relying on Article 41, the applicant claimed altogether approximately 76,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and pecuniary damage sustained as loss of income.

The Government contested this claim.

17.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards her EUR 2,000 under that head.

The applicant made no costs claim.

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.

18.  The applicant also complained about the outcome of the case and that her criminal accusations against third persons were to no avail. She relied on Articles 6, 14 and 17.

The Court notes that the Convention does not guarantee as such any right to have other persons convicted. Moreover, the applicant’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. Furthermore, there is no indication of a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 14.

It follows that this part of the application should be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

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, EUR 2,000 (two 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