SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GÉZÁNÉ NAGY v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 20743/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27 July 2010
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gézáné Nagy 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. 20743/07) 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 a Hungarian national, Mrs Gézáné Nagy (“the applicant”), on 4 May 2007.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
3. On 9 February 2010 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 applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 19 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court against several respondents, seeking ownership of a real estate.
6. On 14 September 1995 a hearing was held. The court appointed an expert graphologist who filed an opinion on 12 March 1996. On 18 April 1996, 30 April 1997 and 21 January 1998 further hearings took place.
7. On 15 September 1998 the court transferred the case to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence. On 2 February 1999 the Budapest Regional Court established its lack of competence. On 6 October 1999 the Supreme Court appointed the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court to hear the case.
8. On 25 May 2000, 9 January, 20 February, 18 April, 12 September 2001 and 18 January 2002 hearings were held. On 17 May 2002 a real estate expert was appointed whose opinion was filed on 9 September 2002. On 10 December 2002 the expert was invited to complete his opinion. The opinion was re-submitted on 17 February 2003.
9. On 20 March 2003 and 14 January 2004 hearings took place. On 20 February 2004 the court gave judgment.
10. On appeal, on 24 February, 2 June and 15 September 2005 the Budapest Regional Court, sitting as a second instance court, heard the parties. On the latter date, it suspended the proceedings pending the termination of a closely related land register procedure.
11. After the resumption of the case, on 19 December 2006 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 19 June 2009 the review bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
THE LAW
12. 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.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 19 June 1995 and ended on 19 June 2009. It thus lasted fourteen years for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint 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, 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.
15. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 14 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has 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).
16. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 9,500 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 that it should award the full sum claimed.
17. The applicant also claimed EUR 2,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government contested the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and according to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 under this head.
18. 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 that it is not necessary to examine the applicant's complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
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 9,500 (nine thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred 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 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