SECOND SECTION
CASE OF FARAGÓ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 63153/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 October 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Faragó and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 63153/10) 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 three Hungarian nationals, Mr Dávid Faragó (“the first applicant”), Ms Dóra Miklódy (“the second applicant”) and Mr Tamás Faragó (“the third applicant”), on 20 October 2010. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Tóth, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 7 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1995, 1969 and 1962, respectively.
5. On 6 July 1995 the second applicant gave birth to a boy, the first applicant. In 1996 the latter was diagnosed with cerebral atrophy.
6. On 1 October 1997 the applicants lodged a medical liability action against the hospital where the first applicant was born.
7. On 30 October 2009 the Pest Central District Court partly found for the applicants and ordered the respondent to pay them respectively 47,647,959 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 163,000 euros (EUR)), HUF 8,000,000 (approximately EUR 27,000) and HUF 3,000,000 (approximately EUR 10,000) and accrued interests. The respondent appealed.
8. On 26 March 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, gave judgment, upholding the first-instance decision.
9. On 21 May 2010 a written copy of the decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10. The applicants 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, arguing in particular that the application was introduced out of time, the final domestic decision being the one given by the Budapest Regional Court on 26 March 2010. Since the applicants took immediate cognisance of the judgment through the presence of their lawyer at that hearing, the six-month time-limit started, in the Government’s view, to run on that date, whereas the application was introduced only on 20 October 2010, i.e. more than six months later.
12. The Court observes that where an applicant is entitled to be served automatically with a copy of the final domestic decision, the object and purpose of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention are best served by counting the six-month period as running from the date of service of the copy of the decision (see Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997–V), which took place in the instant case on 21 May 2010. Therefore, the introduction of the application on 20 October 2010 occurred within the six-month time-limit counted from that date. The Government’s objection must thus be rejected.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 1 October 1997 and ended on 21 May 2010. It thus lasted approximately twelve years and seven months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000–VII).
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 of the Convention, each applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards each of them EUR 7,200.
17. The applicants also claimed, jointly, EUR 6,750 for the legal costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The Government contested the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award jointly to the applicants, who were represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 under this head.
18. 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.
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, within three months , the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 7,200 (seven thousand two hundred euros) to each of the applicants, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) to the applicants 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 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Seçkin ErelPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy