SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GYULÁNÉ KOCSIS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 20915/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 November 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gyuláné Kocsis 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. 20915/07) 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, Ms Gyuláné Kocsis (“the applicant”), on 3 April 2007.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, 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 1958 and lives in Nyírtelek.
5. In May 2000 the applicant brought an action in compensation against a hospital before the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court. She claimed that her son’s death in October 1999 was due to his inefficient treatment by the hospital’s doctors. In March 2001 the Regional Court gave judgment, finding that no causal link have been proven between the respondent’s alleged omissions and the death. This conclusion was upheld by the appellate bench of the Supreme Court on 29 January 2003.
6. On 19 February 2003 the applicant requested the re-opening of the case, which was dismissed by the Regional Court, without an examination on the merits, on 7 May 2003. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal reversed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court on 3 September 2003.
7. On 7 May 2004 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the determination of criminal proceedings initiated against the doctors and the general practitioner for reckless endangerment resulting in death. The Budapest Court of Appeal, however, established that it had not been necessary to await the outcome of the criminal proceedings, as the subject matter of the two proceedings is different. It therefore ordered the continuation of the civil proceedings on 15 October 2004.
8. On 23 February 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 17 January 2008.
9. In the resumed proceedings the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 8 July 2010. The applicant submitted a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 30 March 2011.
THE LAW
10. 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.
11. The period to be taken into consideration began in May 2000 and ended on 30 March 2011. It thus lasted about ten years and eleven months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application 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 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 applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, 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. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
14. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 10,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) 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 awards her EUR 8,000 under this head.
15. 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 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, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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