SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MIKLÓSNÉ KANYÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 30901/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 November 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Miklósné Kanyó v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 October 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 30901/06) 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 Gyöngyi Miklósné Kanyó (“the applicant”), on 19 April 2006.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr J. Cseszlai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 7 December 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 1968 and lives in Gyál.
5. On 5 May 1999 the applicant’s former husband brought an action against the applicant and others before the Dabas District Court, seeking the termination of co-ownership. The court appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 1 March 2001.
6. On 9 October 2001 the District Court gave judgment, which was quashed on appeal by the Pest County Regional Court on 26 March 2002.
7. In the resumed proceedings the first-instance court delivered its judgment on 24 June 2004. On appeal, the Pest County Regional Court gave judgment on 14 April 2005.
8. On 8 November 2005 the Supreme Court, acting in a single judge formation, dismissed the applicant’s petition for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case, it held that the second-instance decision had not been unlawful to such an extent that had bearing on the merits of the case.
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. The Government contested that argument, arguing in particular that the application was introduced out of time, the final domestic decision being the one given by the Pest County Regional Court on 14 April 2005, whereas the application was introduced only on 19 April 2006, i.e. more than six months later.
10. The Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into account all instances which could have had an influence on the outcome of the case (see Rosa Marques and Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, delivered on 8 November 2005, and which dealt with the merits of the applicant’s claim in a reasoned decision, constituted the final domestic decision in the case (see Béla Szabó v. Hungary, no. 37470/06, § 16, 9 December 2008). 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.
11. The period to be taken into consideration began on 5 May 1999 and ended on 8 November 2005. It thus lasted six years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
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 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. The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings and the amount of payment due to the plaintiff. However, the procedure related to a dispute between private parties with no deprivation of property imputable to the State. In the absence of any indication of arbitrariness, this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
14. Lastly, the applicant complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, about the fact that only a single judge examined her petition for review before the Supreme Court, dismissing it without sufficiently comprehensive reasoning. The Court finds that this complaint goes to the fairness and the outcome of the proceedings, to be considered under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality, or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 3,114,000 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 2,000,000[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested these claims. Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards her, on an equitable basis, EUR 2,200 under this head.
16. The applicant also claimed HUF 300,000[3] for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government contested the claim. 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 represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
17. 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, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,200 (two thousand two 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 8 November 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Approx. 10,870 euros (EUR)
[2] Approx. EUR 6,980
[3] Approx. EUR 1,048
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy