SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KELEMEN v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 16033/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 June 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kelemen 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. 16033/06) 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 Gábor Kelemen (“the applicant”), on 11 April 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Lőrincz, a lawyer practising in Nyíregyháza. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 9 November 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 1959 and lives in Nyíregyháza.
5. In June 1989 the applicant initiated an action against the members of a building society before the Nyíregyháza District Court, requesting the court to quash the respondent society’s decision excluding him from the building society.
6. Following several remittals and suspensions, the proceedings finally continued and were joined with another case initiated by a water management association and the respondents in the earlier case.
7. On 27 October 2004 the Nyíregyháza District Court delivered its decision which was amended in part on appeal by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 7 April 2005.
8. On 13 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case. This decision was served on 29 November 2005.
THE LAW
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. The Government contested that argument, arguing in particular that the application was introduced out of time, the final domestic decision being the one given by the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional Court on 7 April 2005, whereas the application was introduced only on 11 April 2006, i.e. more than six months later.
10. The Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into account all instances which could have had an influence on the outcome of the case (see Maria de Lurdes Rosa Marques and Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, served on the applicant on 29 November 2005, and which dealt with the merits of the applicant’s claim in a reasoned decision, constituted the final domestic decision in the case (see Béla Szabó v. Hungary, no. 37470/06, § 16, 9 December 2008). The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected. Moreover, the Court considers that the application 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.
11. The Court observes that 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 notes that the case had been pending for three years and four months on that date. The period in question ended on 13 October 2005. It thus lasted altogether sixteen years and three months before three levels of jurisdiction, out of which twelve years and eleven months following ratification of the Convention by Hungary.
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, 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.
13. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 7,284 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 20,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 11,200 under this head.
14. The applicant has not submitted a costs claim.
15. 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 11,200 (eleven thousand two hundred 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;
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