SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KREISZ v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 12941/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 April 2007
FINAL
03/07/2007
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 Kreisz v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 March 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 12941/05) 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 István Kreisz (“the applicant”), on 25 March 2005.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
3. On 17 June 2005 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
4. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Dunavarsány.
5. On 12 March 1997 three individuals brought an action against the applicant and another respondent, their former employers, claiming outstanding remuneration. After seven hearings, on 5 May 1998 the Budapest Labour Court accepted their claims. On 14 April 1999 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision. On 21 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first instance court.
6. After eight hearings in the resumed proceedings, on 26 August 2003 the Labour Court accepted the plaintiffs' claims in essence. The applicant and the other respondent were liable to pay the award jointly and severally. Following two appellate hearings, on 17 September 2004 the Regional Court upheld this decision, while increasing the procedural fees payable by the applicant and the other respondent. This decision was served on 4 October 2004.
7. On 14 October 2004 the other respondent filed a request for the rectification of the Regional Court's decision. On 24 August 2005 this request was accepted in part. On 14 September 2005 the respondents filed a joint appeal. The date of the second-instance decision concerning this appeal is not known.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings was 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...”
9. The Government contested that argument.
10. The period to be taken into consideration began on 12 March 1997 and, according to the last information submitted by the parties, as of 14 September 2005 it had not yet ended. It had thus already lasted eight and a half years for three levels of jurisdiction by that date.
A. Admissibility
11. The Court notes 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.
B. Merits
12. 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).
13. 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 Frydlender, cited above).
14. 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 case. Moreover, the applicant cannot be said to have contributed significantly to the delay in the case. Accordingly, having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant application 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15. 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
16. The applicant requested 4,047 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 6,276 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
17. The Government contested these claims.
18. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it awards the applicant EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
19. The applicant also claimed EUR 250 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
20. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
21. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his 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. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court awards this claim in full.
C. Default interest
22. 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 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 and EUR 250 (two hundred and fifty euros) in respect of costs and expenses, 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 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 3 April 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy