SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GRESPIK v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 47018/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 April 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Grespik v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 47018/10) 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 a Hungarian national, Mr László Grespik (“the applicant”), on 1 August 2010.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 5 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 22 February 2002 the applicant, then head of the Budapest Public Administration Authority, was dismissed from the civil service, as a disciplinary measure. In the ensuing labour action the parties reached a friendly settlement on 22 March 2002; the applicant was reinstated and obtained damages. However, on the same day, the Prime Minister revoked his mandate to preside over the Authority. As a consequence, the applicant left the Authority.
6. From this labour dispute, four sets of proceedings ensued. On 2 May 2002 the applicant brought a labour action, claiming unlawful revocation of his mandate. In parallel, the Authority brought a civil action against the applicant, claiming the invalidity of the friendly settlement and seeking the reimbursement of the compensation received by the applicant. The applicant also brought labour proceedings, claiming the unlawfulness of the disciplinary measure imposed on him on 22 February 2002 as well as his salary arrears.
7. The friendly settlement was annulled by a final judgment of the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, on 3 November 2005.
8. On 2 February 2010 the Baranya County Regional Court, acting as a second instance court, adopted a final judgment establishing the unlawfulness of the revocation of the applicant’s mandate on 22 March 2002.
9. In the labour action concerning the disciplinary measure, the Zalaegerszeg Labour Court found for the applicant in an interim judgment on 3 April 2007 and established the unlawfulness of the sanction.
10. As regards the applicant’s claim for salary arrears and the Authority’s action for the repayment of compensation, the proceedings appear to be still pending before the Kúria and the Budapest Surroundings High Court, respectively.
THE LAW
11. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
12. The Government contested that argument.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 2 May 2002 and apparently has not yet ended, according to the information in the case file. It has thus lasted almost eleven years and eleven months to date, for three levels of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
14. 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], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (see Ruotolo v. Italy, § 17, 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D).
15. 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, cited above).
16. 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 of the Convention.
17. Relying on Article 41, the applicant claimed approximately 16,700 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 33,400 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
18. The Government contested these claims.
19. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him EUR 7,000 under that head.
20. The applicant also claimed EUR 3,300 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
21. The Government contested the claim.
22. 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 not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 under this head.
23. 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 applicant, 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 7,000 (seven thousand 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Helen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy