SECOND SECTION
CASE OF JÁNOS LAKATOS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 35701/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of János Lakatos 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 7 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 35701/05) 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 János Lakatos (“the applicant”), on 26 September 2005.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 22 June 2009 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 1931 and lives in Miske.
5. On 2 August 1992 two plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against the applicant before the Kalocsa District Court. After several hearings, a judgment was given on 8 September 1994. On 28 February 1995 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case.
6. In the resumed proceedings several hearings took place. On 18 December 1998 the District Court delivered a partial judgment. On appeal, on 24 August 1999 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending the adjudication of those claims which were unaffected by the partial judgment.
7. On 10 January 2000 the District Court held a hearing. On 2 May 2000 it suspended the proceedings pending the termination, on 7 February 2002, of a related land registry dispute.
8. Upon the resumption of the case on 11 December 2002 another hearing was held and an expert appointed. The expert opinion was submitted on 16 June 2003. Between 8 July 2003 and 14 March 2004 the proceedings were again suspended pending the termination of related administrative proceedings.
9. On 5 July 2004 the District Court adopted a partial judgment concerning damages. On appeal, on 6 January 2005 the Regional Court partly upheld the first instance decision while remitting some claims.
10. On 13 September 2005 the first instance proceedings continued. Another expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 12 October 2005. On 17 November 2005 and 7 February 2006 further hearings took place.
11. On 15 February 2006 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 22 November 2006 the Regional Court heard the parties and appointed an expert who filed his opinion on 5 January 2007.
12. On 20 November 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On 24 June 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
THE LAW
13. 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.
14. The period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court observes that the proceedings had already lasted three months on that date. The period in question ended on 24 June 2009. It thus lasted almost sixteen years and eight months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
15. 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.
16. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 16,000 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 the full sum claimed, i.e. EUR 16,000.
17. 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, EUR 16,000 (sixteen thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy