SECOND SECTION
CASE OF HEGYI v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 9254/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hegyi 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 24 May 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 9254/07) 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 Zsuzsanna Beatrix Hegyi (“the applicant”), on 8 February 2007.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by M 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 1949 and lives in Martonvásár.
5. On 28 August 1995 the applicant filed for divorce with the Székesfehérvár District Court. After obtaining several forensic expert opinions, it dissolved the applicant’s marriage, established the amount of child maintenance and divided the matrimonial property on 4 February 2000.
6. On 19 October 2000 the Fejér County Regional Court brought a partial judgment concerning the sum of child maintenance, and remitted the remainder of the case.
7. In the resumed proceedings the Székesfehérvár District Court delivered a judgment on 5 November 2005. On appeal, the Fejér County Regional Court finally divided the matrimonial property on 22 June 2006. This judgment was served on the applicant on 10 August 2006.
THE LAW
8. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. She also invoked Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. The Government contested that argument. The Court considers that the application should be examined under Article 6 § 1 alone.
9. The period to be taken into consideration began on 28 August 1995 and ended on 10 August 2006. It thus lasted ten years and eleven months for two 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 3,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. Having regard to what was at stake in the dispute, the Court awards her the full amount claimed, i.e. EUR 11,000.
12. The applicant also claimed HUF 2,260,436 for the 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, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 in respect of all costs incurred.
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 11,000 (eleven 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 14 June 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy