SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MÁRTON v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 11005/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 January 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Márton v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 December 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 11005/08) 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 Dóra Márton (“the applicant”), on 26 February 2008.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 5 January 2011 the application was communicated 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 1971 and lives in Szentendre.
5. On 21 July 1999 a foundation brought an action against the applicant before the Szentendre District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of an agreement. The action was dismissed in June 2000. This decision was quashed on appeal by the Pest County Regional Court on 12 March 2002.
6. In the resumed proceedings the case was transferred between several courts due to a dispute over competence.
7. Finally the Dunakeszi District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s action on 11 June 2007. This judgment was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 13 July 2007. According to the rules of Code of Civil Proceedings, the parties had fifteen days from this date to submit an appeal against the judgment.
8. In the absence of appeals, the judgment became final on 18 September 2007.
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.
10. The Government contested that argument, arguing in particular that the application was introduced out of time, the final domestic decision being served on the applicant’s representative on 13 July 2007, whereas the application was introduced only on 26 February 2008, i.e. more than six months later (cf. Article 35 § 1 of the Convention).
11. The Court observes that according to the domestic procedural rules, the parties have fifteen days following the service of a first-instance judgment to submit an appeal against it. In these circumstances, the date of 13 July 2007 referred to by the Government is the service of the judgment which had not yet become final. Therefore the date from which the six-month time-limit is to be counted begins when the judgment became final, i.e. on 18 September 2007, which date preceded the date of introduction by less than six months. 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.
12. The period to be taken into consideration began on 21 July 1999 and ended on 18 September 2007. It thus lasted eight years and two months before two levels of jurisdiction. 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 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 15,498 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 5,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards her the full sum claimed, i.e. EUR 5,500 under this head.
14. The applicant also claimed EUR 1,998 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum corresponds to legal work, translation and postal costs. 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, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 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 5,500 (five thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred 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 22 January 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy