SECOND SECTION
CASE OF GYULÁNÉ SZABÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 34344/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 February 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Gyuláné Szabó 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 18 January 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 34344/07) 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 Gyuláné Szabó (“the applicant”), on 15 July 2007.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Budapest.
A. First set of proceedings
5. On 20 June 1996 the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the review of a resolution adopted by the community of flatowners of the house in which she lives.
6. Following several hearings and an interruption of two years due to the death of two of the respondents, the District Court delivered a judgment on 27 May 2004.
7. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court adopted a partial judgment concerning the substitution of a legal statement, while remitting some claims on 24 June 2005.
8. In the resumed proceedings the first instance court discontinued the proceedings on 25 March 2008. However, the review bench of the Supreme Court quashed this decision and instructed the first instance court to resume the proceedings.
9. On 15 December 2009 the District Court gave judgment which was appealed by the applicant. The proceedings are now pending before the Budapest Regional Court.
B. Second set of proceedings
10. On 4 April 2000 the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of yet another resolution of the flatowners.
11. On 5 October 2004 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for the applicant. On appeal, on 12 October 2005 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 17 January 2007 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. In respect of the first set of proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration began on 20 June 1996 and has not yet ended. It has already lasted to date over fourteen years and seven months for three levels of jurisdiction. Of this time, two years corresponded to the interruption of the case on account of the deaths of two respondents. This delay cannot be imputed to the State. However, the remaining period still exceeds twelve years and seven months. As to the second set of proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration began on 4 April 2000 and ended on 17 January 2007. It thus lasted six years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application 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 also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of the second set of 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 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
16. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 15,000 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 awards her EUR 9,600 under this head.
17. The applicant also claimed 169,053 Hungarian forints (EUR 600) costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 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 considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 500 in respect of all costs incurred.
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 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, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 9,600 (nine thousand six 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy