SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GYULA VARGA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 32990/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gyula Varga 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. 32990/09) 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 Gyula Varga (“the applicant”), on 16 June 2009.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 15 September 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 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 25 June 2002 the applicant initiated an action in compensation against the Hungarian State before the Pest Central District Court.
6. On 31 October 2002 the court gave judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court delivered an interlocutory judgment on 11 June 2003. This judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court on 13 January 2005.
7. In the resumed proceedings the Pest Central District Court gave judgment on 26 November 2009. In the absence of appeals, the decision became final on 19 February 2010.
THE LAW
8. 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.
9. The period to be taken into consideration began on 25 June 2002 and ended on 19 February 2010. It thus lasted seven years and seven months before three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
10. 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.
11. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 15,067,448 Hungarian forints[1] (HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 35,000,000[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him EUR 2,900 under this head.
12. The applicant also claimed HUF 21,400[3] for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court, such as postal and translation costs. 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 awards the applicant the sum in full, that is, EUR 80.
13. 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
(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 2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 80 (eighty 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 January 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] 54,215 euros (EUR)
[2] EUR 125,937
[3] EUR 80
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy