SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MÉSZÁROS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 21317/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 October 2008
FINAL
21/01/2009
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mészáros v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 21317/05) 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 Iván Mészáros (“the applicant”), on 19 May 2005.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Tóth, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
3. On 5 December 2007 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Mezőtúr.
5. In July 1988 the applicant had a road accident and suffered serious injuries resulting in permanent disability. On 7 January 1990 he brought an action in compensation before the Mezőtúr District Court against the company whose employee had caused the accident and an insurance company.
6. On 30 May 1995 the District Court, after having held five hearings and obtained the opinions of various experts, found for the applicant and awarded him 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately
4,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation. On appeal, the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and dismissed the applicant’s action on 4 February 1997. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. On 16 November 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed his petition as time-barred, without an examination on the merits.
7. In May 1999 the applicant requested the reopening of the proceedings. In September 1999 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request. On appeal, the Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and ordered the reopening of the case in December 1999.
8. In the reopened proceedings, the District Court upheld the Regional Court’s decision on 25 June 2002. The applicant appealed. The Regional Court reversed the District Court’s decision and found for the applicant. Concerning the amount of compensation, the Regional Court remitted the case to the first-instance court on 5 December 2002.
9. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court on 30 July 2003 awarded the applicant HUF 450,000 (approximately 1,785 euros) in compensation. On appeal, on 11 November 2004 the Regional Court raised the amount to HUF 3,631,176 (approximately 14,408 euros) plus accrued interest and ordered the defendants to pay a monthly allowance of
HUF 38,857 (approximately 154 euros) to the applicant. This decision was served on the applicant on 7 December 2004.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
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, 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...”
11. The Government contested that argument.
12. The period to be taken into consideration only began 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 thereafter, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at that point. The Court observes that the proceedings had already been pending by then for over twenty-one months.
13. The period in question ended on 7 December 2004. It thus lasted twelve years and one month for two levels of jurisdiction. However, the delay between the delivery of the first final decision and the lodging of the applicant’s request for reopening (that is, the period from February 1997 until May 1999, nearly fifteen months which included the futile review proceedings) should be deducted from the overall length since it cannot be imputed to the Hungarian authorities. Accordingly, the relevant period is ten years and ten months.
A. Admissibility
14. 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
15. 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). In connection with the latter point, special diligence is necessary in disputes concerning the determination of compensation for victims of road accidents (see, inter alia, Silva Pontes v. Portugal, judgment of 23 March 1994, Series A no. 286-A, p. 15, § 39).
16. 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).
17. 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 finds that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
18. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings infringed his right to an effective remedy for his original, substantive claim. However, the Court observes that thereby the applicant complained essentially about the outcome of the proceedings. However, Article 13 of the Convention is concerned with the availability of effective procedures in relation to a Convention claim, not the result of litigation, whether favourable or not for the applicant. It follows that this part of the application, as formulated by the applicant, must be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. 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
21. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22. The Government contested the claim.
23. The Court awards the applicant, on an equitable basis, EUR 9,000 for non-pecuniary damage, account also being taken of what was at stake in the dispute.
B. Costs and expenses
24. The applicant claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. He filed an itemised statement of the hours billable by his lawyer. According to this statement, the bill corresponded to thirty-seven and a half hours of work (consultation with clients, seven hours; studying the file, eight hours; studying case-law, seven and a half hours; drafting submissions, fifteen hours) spent by his lawyer on the case, charged at an hourly rate of EUR 80.
25. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
26. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of 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 finds it reasonable to award EUR 500 under this head.
C. Default interest
27. 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 according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 500 (five hundred euros) 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 21 October 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy