SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BARTAL v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 8226/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 July 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bartal v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 8226/07) 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 two Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Antal Bartal (“the applicants”), on 6 January 2007.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr L. Dvorák, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
3. On 8 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 assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1947 and live in Érd.
5. On 6 January 1991 the applicants and others brought an action before the Buda Surroundings District Court for ascertainment and designation of the boundary of a real property. On 7 November and 11 December 1991 hearings were held.
6. On 15 September 1994 and 7 July 1995 further hearings took place and, on 12 July 1994, an expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 22 August 1995.
7. On 27 March 1996 the applicants instituted land registry proceedings seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan.
8. On 20 March 1996 a hearing was held. On 2 April 1996 the court gave judgment.
9. On appeal, on 5 June 1997 the Pest County Regional Court held a hearing and suspended the case pending the land registry proceedings.
10. Subsequently, on 6 April 2004 the Regional Court held a hearing and again suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry proceedings which had been reopened in the meantime.
11. On 7 February 2006 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings yet another time, pending an action concerning the rectification of the title plan, still in progress before the Budaörs District Court.
12. The case is pending before the Regional Court.
THE LAW
13. The applicants 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.
14. The period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court notes that the case had already been pending for one year and ten months on that day. The period in question has not yet ended. It has thus lasted seventeen years and eight months 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 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.
16. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants claimed, jointly, 400,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 4,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. 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 applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and that it should award them, jointly, the full sum claimed, i.e. the equivalent of EUR 14,400.
17. The applicants also claimed HUF 2,040,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government contested the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and according to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs under all heads.
18. 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
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 applicants, jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 14,400 (fourteen thousand four 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 applicants, 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 applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 July 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy