SECOND SECTION
CASE OF BODNÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 46206/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 November 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Bodnár 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 23 October 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 46206/07) 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 a Hungarian national, Mr Zsolt Bodnár (“the applicant”), on 19 October 2007.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr T. Földes, a lawyer practising in Debrecen. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 9 June 2010 the application was communicated 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
4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Debrecen.
5. On 10 April 1992 the applicant brought a civil action against the predecessor of the Hungarian National Fiduciary Private Limited Company (“ÁPV Rt”) before the Budapest Regional Court.
6. The case was transferred to the Pest Central District Court. It appointed an expert, who filed an opinion in January 1995. On 4 November 1996 the court gave judgment, which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 12 December 1997.
7. In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered its judgment on 27 April 1998. This decision was quashed on appeal on 19 January 2000.
8. The District Court’s judgment of 14 July 2004 was again quashed by the Regional Court on 28 October 2005.
9. Finally the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, gave judgment on 25 April 2007.
THE LAW
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. The Government contested that argument.
11. 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 been pending for about seven months on that date. The period in question ended on 25 April 2007. It thus lasted fourteen years and five months before two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
12. 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 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.
13. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 20,000 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 EUR 14,400 under this head.
14. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,940 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum corresponds to fifteen hours of legal work, charged at an hourly rate of EUR 100 plus tax, and a sum of EUR 65 for translation costs. 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 applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
15. 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 applicant, 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 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 15 November 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy