SECOND SECTION
CASE OF NECKOV v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 41030/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 April 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Neckov 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 25 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 41030/10) 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 German national, Mr József Neckov (“the applicant”), on 16 July 2010.
2. The applicant was represented by Ms Zs. Varak, a lawyer practising in Miskolc. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 17 October 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
4. The German Government did not wish to exercise their right to make written comments in the case (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Miskolc.
6. In 2003 litigation started, before the Miskolc District Court, between the applicant and his ex-spouse with a view to terminating common ownership of their marital property.
7. The case was heard at second instance by the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court.
8. The final decision was given by the Supreme Court on 8 November 2011.
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 period to be taken into consideration began in 2003 and ended on 8 November 2011. It thus lasted approximately eight years for three levels of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
11. 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).
12. 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 about the outcome of the litigation.
The Court notes that the domestic courts decided on a civil-law litigation between private parties. Their decisions, free of any appearance of arbitrariness, cannot be regarded as constituting an interference with the applicant’s property rights.
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.
14. Relying on Article 41, the applicant claimed approximately 21,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined.
15. The Government contested the claim.
16. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him EUR 1,800 under that head.
17. The applicant also claimed EUR 2,500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This sum corresponds to 25 hours of legal work billable by his lawyer at an hourly rate of 30,000 Hungarian forints.
18. The Government contested the claim.
19. 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 under this head.
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 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 the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 1,800 (one thousand eight 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 22 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley NaismithHelen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy