SECOND SECTION
CASE OF LÁSZLÓ MOLNÁR v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 41063/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 March 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of László Molnár v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 February 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 41063/07) 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 László Molnár
(“the applicant”), on 20 September 2007.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms M. Czeglédy, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 5 May 2010 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 1942 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 15 September 1989 the applicant brought an action against a private individual before the Pest Central District Court, seeking to recover the possession of some specific movable property.
6. After several hearings, a judgment was delivered on 19 November 1992, which was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 14 September 1993.
7. In the resumed proceedings several forensic expert opinions were obtained. Two hearings had to be rescheduled as the applicant and his representative failed to appear, despite having been duly summoned. On 3 June 2004 the District Court delivered a judgment. On 11 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case.
8. The District Court delivered a partial judgment on 12 April 2006, which was decided on appeal by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.
9. In respect of the respondent's counterclaim, the first-instance court delivered a judgment on 7 July 2006 which was upheld by the Regional Court on 22 March 2007.
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. The Government contested this view.
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 one month on that date. The period in question ended on 22 March 2007. It thus lasted altogether seventeen years and six months before two levels of jurisdiction, out of which fourteen years and four 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 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him EUR 14,400 under this head.
14. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
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, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 14,400 (fourteen thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 15 March 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosIreneu Cabral Barreto
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy