SECOND SECTION
CASE OF FERENCSIK v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 33275/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ferencsik 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 Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 33275/08) 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 Attila Ferencsik (“the applicant”), on 14 June 2008.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms A. Herczeg, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 22 August 2011 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 1958 and lives in Balassagyarmat.
5. On 26 April 1997 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and eighteen other defendants for fraud. A ban on travel was also imposed on him until 2003.
6. On 27 January 2003 the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court. From February 2007 onwards the District Court held one hundred and nine hearings and heard one hundred and one witnesses and eleven experts.
7. On 14 November 2007 the District Court gave judgment, acquitting the applicant. The applicant and his counsel took note of the decision, therefore it became final the same day.
8. On 17 January 2008 a written copy of the judgment was served on the applicant.
THE LAW
9. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
10. 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 Pest Central District Court on 14 November 2007. As the applicant took note of the judgment, it became final the same day, whereas the application was introduced only on 14 June 2008, i.e. more than six months later.
11. 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 (Worm v. Austria, 29 August 1997, § 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 V), which took place on 17 January 2008. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected and this part of the application be declared admissible.
12. The period to be taken into consideration began on 26 April 1997 and ended on 14 November 2007. It thus lasted ten years and six months for one level of jurisdiction. 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).
13. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], cited above, § 43). The Government pointed out that the proceedings were particularly complex, and referred to the high number of hearings held and witnesses and experts heard. While acknowledging the complexity of the case, the Court nevertheless notes that there had been considerable periods of inactivity in the proceedings, such as the period between the submission of the bill of indictment and the first hearing (see paragraph 7 above). Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that, despite the rather complex nature of the proceedings, in the instant case the length of the proceedings was nevertheless excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
14. The applicant also complained of a violation of his right to respect for his family life resulting from the length of the proceedings complained of. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, he submitted that due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings, his company went bankrupt, and that he was under criminal indictment for an excessive period.
The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. Having regard to the finding relating to Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 13 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 8 (see, among other authorities, Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 25, ECHR 1999-I).
15. Moreover, the applicant complained, relying on Article 8 of the Convention, that he had been prohibited from travelling abroad until 2003. However, the application was introduced only on 14 June 2008, i.e. outside the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
16. He further submitted that, in the course of the criminal proceedings, certain newspaper articles had been published where he had been presented in an unfavourable light, in violation of his Article 8 rights. The Court observes that the applicant did not bring an action for libel before the domestic courts. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
17. Lastly, the applicant’s submission that he had been prohibited from changing place of residence is wholly unsubstantiated. This part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § (a) 3 and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
18. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 1,000,000 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, on an equitable basis, EUR 11,500 under this head.
19. The applicant also claimed EUR 30,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 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.
20. 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 and the related Article 8 complaint admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. 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 11,500 (eleven thousand five 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 January 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy