SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GUTMAN v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 53943/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 November 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gutman v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 53943/07) 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, Mr József Gutman (“the applicant”), on 5 December 2007.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr L. Kovács, 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 13 April 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 1936 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 14 May 2001 the applicant submitted a request to the Ministry of Youth and Sport concerning Olympic annuity as being the coach of an Olympic medal winner. He was informed that according to the legal regulation in force, he could not request the annuity as it was the medal winner who should make a proposition for the beneficiary of such annuity. In the meanwhile the Ministry established the annuity for another coach.
6. On 16 August 2001 the Public Prosecutor’s Office submitted an objection to the Ministry’s decision on the applicant’s behalf, which was dismissed by the Minister on 6 October 2001.
7. The Prosecutor’s Office sought judicial review of the Minister’s decision before the Budapest Regional Court. The applicant intervened in the proceedings. The Regional Court dismissed the action on 8 January 2003. In the review proceedings the Supreme Court quashed the Minister’s decision and remitted the case to the administrative authority on 1 June 2004.
8. In the resumed proceedings the administrative authorities dismissed the applicant’s request on both levels. The applicant sought judicial review of the Ministry’s decision before the Budapest Regional Court. It dismissed his action on 14 May 2007.
9. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. Finding that the applicant should have initiated the action against the Minister, it quashed the first-instance judgment and discontinued the proceedings on 25 June 2008.
10. The applicant therefore again initiated the judicial review of the administrative decisions mentioned in paragraph 8 above before the Budapest Regional Court, this time bringing the action against the Minister. His action was finally dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 November 2010.
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. The Government contested that argument.
12. The period to be taken into consideration began on 16 August 2001 and ended on 25 June 2008. The applicant argued that the final domestic decision in the case was given by the Supreme Court on 17 November 2010. The Court observes that following the discontinuation of the proceedings by the Supreme Court on 25 June 2008, the applicant brought a separate civil action against a different respondent. The duration of this procedure cannot therefore be added to the overall length of the proceedings as it constitutes a separate action. It follows that the proceedings have thus lasted six years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
13. 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). 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.
14. The applicant further complained that the outcome of the proceedings had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court finds that the complaint directly concerns the domestic courts’ evaluation of evidence and its interpretation of domestic law. Therefore it should be evaluated solely from the standpoint of Article 6 § 1, no arbitrary deprivation of property being identifiable in the circumstances. The Court reiterates that it is not a court of fourth instance and it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). Accordingly, in light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that there is no appearance of any violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
15. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 4,300 under this head.
16. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. This amount corresponds to fifteen hours of legal representation. 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 the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
17. 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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings outlined in paragraphs 6-9 above admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
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 Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 4,300 (four thousand three 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 November 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy