SECOND SECTION
CASE OF CSORBA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 49905/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Csorba 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 15 November 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 49905/06) 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 Bálint Csorba (“the applicant”), on 5 December 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Pencz, a lawyer practising in Kecskemét. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 9 November 2009 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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Kecskemét.
5. In February 1992 the applicant brought an action against a limited liability company before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court, requesting the court to order the respondent to pay him fee for using his real estate.
6. The Regional Court suspended the proceedings on three occasions for several years, pending the outcome of separate legal disputes related to the ownership of the real estate. The applicant’s requests to have the proceedings resumed were dismissed.
7. On 22 June 2006 the Regional Court delivered judgment, finding partly for the applicant. In the absence of appeals, the judgment became final on 17 July 2006.
THE LAW
8. 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.
9. 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 observes that the proceedings had already lasted about nine months on that date. The period in question ended on 17 July 2006 when the Regional Court’s judgment became final. It thus lasted thirteen years and eight months for one level of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
10. 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.
11. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 11,200 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 the full sum claimed, i.e. EUR 11,200.
12. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,575 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This amount should correspond to the legal fees billable by his lawyer, namely 63 hours of legal work charged at an hourly rate of EUR 25. 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 the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
13. 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 11,200 (eleven thousand two 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 December 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy