SECOND SECTION
CASE OF LAKAT v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 54289/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 March 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lakat v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 54289/09) 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, Ms Mariann Lakat (“the applicant”), on 7 October 2009.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 5 May 2010 the application was communicated to the Government.
4. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Dabas.
6. In 1985 the applicant’s father brought an action in compensation and including other claims before the Pest Central District Court. In 1986 the applicant joined the litigation.
7. Between June 1995 and January 1998 as well as between March 2000 and December 2004 the case was interrupted on account of the deaths of several of the altogether 37 respondents.
8. In 2007 the applicant’s father died. The court again interrupted the proceedings pending the entry into litigation of the successor. However, it appears that this successor was the applicant herself, who had been party to the case since 1986.
9. The case is still pending before the Pest Central District Court.
THE LAW
10. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11. The Government contested that argument.
12. 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, on that date, the case had already been pending for some six years.
13. The period in question has not yet ended. It has thus lasted over twenty-one years to date, after ratification. From this duration, the periods not entirely imputable to the State (see paragraph 7 above) must be deducted. The remaining period is approximately fourteen years for one level of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
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.
16. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 22,400 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damage.
17. The Government contested the claim.
18. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards her EUR 17,600 under that head.
19. The applicant made no costs claim.
20. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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 17,600 (seventeen thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 25 March 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley NaismithHelen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy