SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KORGA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 4825/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December 2005
FINAL
12/04/2006
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 Korga v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar.
Having deliberated in private on 15 November 2005,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 4825/02) 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 Péter Korga (“the applicant”), on 30 October 2001.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Höltzl, Deputy State-Secretary, Ministry of Justice.
3. On 29 June 2004 the Court decided to communicate the application. 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 1952 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 20 February 1995 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce. She also requested the division of the matrimonial property and the settlement of the use of the couple’s flat.
6. After five hearings, on 26 June 1996 the court gave a partial decision and pronounced the parties’ divorce. The proceedings concerning the matrimonial property continued.
7. Meanwhile, on 13 June 1995 the applicant brought an action before the same court, challenging the validity of a contract by which his ex-wife had meanwhile sold their common flat.
8. After five hearings, on 16 January 1997 these proceedings were joined to the dispute concerning the division of the matrimonial property.
9. After another two hearings, on 16 July 1997 a valuation expert was appointed.
10. Following four further hearings, on 26 June 1998 the District Court gave a partial decision. It established the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat, annulled the above-mentioned contract and suspended the examination of the remainder of the case (i.e. the distribution of movable property) until the partial decision became final.
11. After a hearing on 20 January 1999, on 21 April 1999 the Budapest Regional Court confirmed the partial decision.
12. In review proceedings, on 8 May 2001 the Supreme Court quashed the partial decision while upholding, again as a partial decision, the establishment of the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat. However, it did not annul the disputed contract.
13. Subsequently, on 14 March 2002 the District Court resumed the proceedings. After a hearing on 2 July 2002, on 4 December 2002 it divided the matrimonial property.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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 his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
15. The Government contested that argument.
16. The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 February 1995 and ended on 4 December 2002. It thus lasted more than seven years and nine months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
17. 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
18. 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, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
19. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above).
20. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case 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
21. Relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 5 of Protocol No. 7, the applicant complained of the outcome of the proceedings.
22. The Court observes that the applicant did not appeal against the District Court’s decision of 4 December 2002. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
23. 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
24. The applicant claimed 40,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
25. The Government contested the claim.
26. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 3,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
27. The applicant made no claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
28. 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 3,000 (three 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 6 December 2005, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy