SECOND SECTION
CASE OF CSERJÉS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 53834/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 November 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Cserjés and Others 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. 53834/07) 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 eighteen Hungarian nationals (see Annex for details) on 4 December 2007.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 13 September 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. Upon a private company’s request, in May 1996 L. K., a forest engineer employed by the company, made an estimation of the amount of damages caused to the company’s territory by wild animals under the responsibility of a hunting society. Subsequently, on 1 August 1996 the company brought an action in compensation against the hunting society, the members of which were the applicants.
5. In March 1997 the hunting society was dissolved. The proceedings were discontinued on 10 June 1997, pending the identification of successors to the proceedings.
6. On 6 March 1999 the proceedings continued, as the plaintiff designated the applicants as successors to the proceedings.
7. The Kiskőrös District Court appointed an expert, J. K., to establish the value of the hunters’ house. The expert filed an opinion on 30 November 2000.
8. On 9 July 2003 the Kiskőrös District Court found for the plaintiff. This judgment was quashed by the Csongrád County Regional Court on 23 February 2005.
9. In the resumed proceedings, due to the bias declared by the judges in Bács-Kiskun County, the case was heard by the Szeged District Court. The court requested L. K. to submit a further expert report to establish the amount of damages caused. He filed an opinion on 24 January 2006.
10. On 3 March 2006 the first-instance court gave judgment, finding for the plaintiff. The applicants appealed, arguing - among others - that they had not received the copy of minutes of the hearing of 28 October 2005 on time, and questioning the impartiality of L. K.
11. On appeal, the Csongrád County Regional Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. Concerning the minutes of the hearing, the second-instance court pointed out that the District Court had no legal obligation to send them the minutes automatically. They had the options of requesting copies either by post or in person at the court. The applicants had requested the copies for the first time on 11 January 2006, following which the court had sent the minutes on 13 January 2006 despite the fact that the applicants had not paid the copy fees. The delivery of the mail sent according to the rules had not been successful. Following the repeated request of the applicants on 16 February 2006, the copies had been sent once again on 21 February 2006. Moreover, the court pointed out that the respondents had been present at the hearing, where they had the opportunity to take notes, and could have submitted observations within eight days to L. K.’s expert report, delivered to them on 13 February 2006. As to the impartiality of L. K., the court emphasised that he had been the only expert to see the damages on-site in 1996. Ten years after the occurrence of the damages, appointing a further forensic expert to proceed on the basis of documentary evidence would have been futile in the court’s opinion. In addition, L. K. had followed the court’s instructions when preparing the expert report.
12. The applicants lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which upheld the final judgment on 10 May 2007. This decision was served on the applicants on 14 June 2007.
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 started on 6 March 1999 in respect of the applicants when they were designated as successors to the proceedings and ended on 10 May 2007. The proceedings thus lasted eight years and two months before three court instances. 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. The applicants also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. In particular, they complained that the expert appointed to estimate the amount of damages caused, L. K., had been selected outside from the forensic experts’ list and had been biased, as he used to be employed by the plaintiff. Further to this, they had not been informed of the expert examination and could therefore not submit comments on it. Moreover, they complained that they had not received the copies of the minutes of the hearing held on 28 October 2005 until 28 February 2006. Therefore they were unable to prepare adequately their defense for the hearing held on 3 March 2006. Finally, they complained that they had not been informed of the date of J. K. expert’s onsite examination concerning the determination of the value of the hunters’ house, contrary to the plaintiff.
17. As regards L. K. and the copies of minutes, the Court takes the view that the Csongrád County Regional Court had given adequate reasoning as to their compliance with the law. There is no reason to depart from the domestic court’s findings in this respect, which disclose no appearance of arbitrariness. It follows that these parts of the application are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
18. Concerning J. K.’s on-site examination, the Court observes that the applicants had failed to raise this complaint before the domestic courts. This part of the application is therefore to be rejected for failure to exhaust domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 and 4 of the Convention.
19. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) each in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 4,800 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards them each EUR 2,400, with the exception of Mr and Mrs István Márin, who form household economic unit and should therefore receive the sum jointly.
20. The applicants also claimed EUR 500 jointly in respect of 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 applicants jointly the sum in full in respect of all costs incurred.
21. 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 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 applicants, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,400 (two thousand four hundred euros) each, with the exception of Mr and Mrs István Márin, who should be awarded this sum jointly, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros) jointly, 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 15 November 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Annex
Applicants in case No. 53834/07
Antal Schaffer
1957
Császártöltés
József Gyurákovics
1948
Császártöltés
Péter Schindler
1939
Császártöltés
András Walter
1953
Budapest
István Plech
1954
Kéleshalom
József Oláh
1952
Császártöltés
Árpád Solt
1940
Baja
Sándor Nagy
1949
Császártöltés
István Dénes
1958
Kiskőrös
Ferenc Magyar
1954
Császártöltés
Ferdinánd Tóth
1941
Császártöltés
Csaba Lei
1968
Császártöltés
Péter Lei
1944
Császártöltés
János Magyar
1939
Császártöltés
Sándor Cserjés
1949
Baja
Mária Pánczél (Istvánné Márin)
1943
Császártöltés
Tamás Marschall
1942
Budapest
István Márin
1938
Császártöltés
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy