SECOND SECTION
CASE OF FÜRY v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 38042/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 July 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Füry v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 38042/06) 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 and a French national, Mr and Mrs Lajos Füry (“the applicants”), on 12 July 2006.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
3. On 19 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 assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1940 and 1942 respectively and live in Budapest.
A. Administrative litigation
5. In a real estate dispute, on 11 October 1995 the applicants brought an action against the Budapest Administrative Office. The Pest Central District Court dismissed their action on 6 May 1997. On 26 February 1998 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed their appeal.
B. Criminal proceedings
6. In the context of the above dispute, on 14 May 1996 and 4 July 1997, respectively, the applicants filed criminal reports against various individuals on charges of fraud and other offences. Their complaints against the non-pursuit of these proceedings were finally dismissed on 31 March 1999.
C. Actions for judicial constitution of a contract and deletion of a land register entry
7. On 26 May 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Buda Central District Court for judicial constitution of a contract of sale of a property. On 16 December 1997 they requested the suspension of the proceedings pending another action of theirs, introduced on 3 October 1997, in which they sought deletion of a related land register entry. On 6 January 1998 the District Court decided to suspend the proceedings since the issues to be determined in the other case were found to be preliminary ones.
8. In the case concerning the land register entry, on 7 April 1998 the applicants modified their action; therefore, the action had to be extended to include further respondents. However, the applicants did so only on 21 April 1999. After several hearings, the proceedings had to be interrupted between 5 June 2000 and 19 April 2001, pending the succession of a deceased respondent. On 21 March 2002 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held several hearings and on 15 January 2004 upheld the first-instance decision in a final judgment. The applicants filed a petition for review. On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court's review bench refused to deal with the merits of the petition holding that the conditions thereof were not met. A further so-called appeal, not recognised under the law, was dismissed on 1 March 2006.
9. Subsequently the applicants notified the District Court of the termination of the case concerning the land register issue, and the one concerning the constitution of a contract was resumed. Several hearings took place between 10 January 2007 and 18 April 2008. On 28 August 2008 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 28 May and 24 September 2009 and delivered a judgment on 1 October 2009, overruling the first-instance judgment in favour of the applicants and constituting the contract as requested. On 27 November 2009 the respondent filed a petition for review. The case is still pending before the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
10. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings in chapter C above was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1. The Government contested that argument.
11. The period to be taken into consideration began on 26 May 1997 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over thirteen years so far. However, the Court observes that the applicants caused a one-year delay between 7 April 1998 and 21 April 1999 by extending their action to include the required respondents only belatedly. It further notes that the main case had to be interrupted between 5 June 2000 and 19 April 2001, pending the succession of a deceased respondent. This delay of some ten months cannot be imputed to the State. Lastly, the nine-month period between 23 May 2005 and 1 March 2006 corresponding to the applicants' so-called appeal against the rejection of their petition for review, which was not recognised under the law and thus futile, must be attributed to them (see paragraph 8 above). After the deduction of these periods, the relevant length is still over ten years and five months for three 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, 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.
13. The applicants also claimed that the length of the proceedings in question amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to that under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which has already been examined above and must therefore, likewise, be declared admissible. However, having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (paragraph 12 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately whether there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
14. The applicants also complained under Article 6 about the outcome of the proceedings outline in chapters A and B and, under Article 13, about the Supreme Court's decision of 23 May 2005 in chapter C (see paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 above). However, these cases were terminated on 26 February 1998, 31 March 1999 and 23 May 2005, respectively, that is, more than six months before the date of introduction of the application. The applicants' so-called appeal against the Supreme Court's decision, not recognised under the law, was no effective remedy in the circumstances and did not influence the running of the six-month time-limit. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the court decisions adopted so far in the case concerning the constitution of a contract amounted to a breach of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court notes that this case is still pending before the Supreme Court, a circumstance rendering this complaint premature. In any event, it is satisfied that the lower courts adjudicated a civil-law dispute between private parties in proceedings devoid of any appearance of arbitrariness. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded. The Court therefore considers that these complaints must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
15. Relying on Article 41, the applicants claimed, jointly, 13,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them, jointly, EUR 6,400 under that head. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the proceedings in question are still pending before the domestic courts, the Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress would be to bring them to a conclusion as soon as possible, by conducting them in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Uğuz v. Turkey, no. 31932/03, § 30, 13 December 2007).
16. The applicants also claimed EUR 2,250 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This amount corresponds to 18 hours billable by their lawyer at an hourly rate of EUR 125. The Government contested the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and in the light of its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of
EUR 1,000.
17. 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 complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings in chapter C of The Facts and the peaceful enjoyment of the applicants' possessions admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the case outlined in chapter C;
3. Holds that it is not necessary to examine the applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 6,400 (six 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 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;
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 July 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy