SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KÁLOVITS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 26958/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 October 2007
FINAL
30/01/2008
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kálovits v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 October 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 26958/04) 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 Géza Kálovits (“the applicant”), on 24 May 2004.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr E. Magyar, a lawyer practising in Eger. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
3. On 27 October 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bátonyterenye.
5. In November 1991 criminal proceedings were instituted against him.
6. On 18 May 1993 the Balassagyarmat District Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment in the case, which concerned eleven other individuals. The applicant was charged with fraud and two counts of violating foreign exchange regulations.
7. Between 21 March 1995 and 4 February 2003, the Eger District Court held hearings over 79 days. It heard evidence from several experts and more than 100 witnesses. On the last-mentioned date, it acquitted the applicant.
8. On appeal by the prosecution, on 11 December 2003 the Heves County Regional Court upheld the applicant's acquittal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
10. The Government contested that argument.
11. The period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition under the Convention 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 case had already been pending for a year by that date.
The period in question ended on 11 December 2003. It thus lasted over eleven years and one month for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
12. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
13. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
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 Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
15. 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the unfairness of the proceedings. The Court notes however that he was finally acquitted. Consequently, he cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of his Convention rights in this connection, as understood by Article 34. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
17. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
18. The applicant claimed 200,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
19. The Government contested the claim.
20. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 10,000 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
21. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
22. The Government contested the claim.
23. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. The Court notes that the applicant's costs claim has not been substantiated by any relevant documents and must therefore be rejected.
C. Default interest
24. 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 from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 30 October 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy