SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SÁRA ANNA KOVÁCS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 62552/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 March 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sára Anna Kovács 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 4 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 62552/10) 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 Hungarian national, Ms Sára Anna Kovács (“the applicant”), on 25 October 2010.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 6 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Siófok.
5. On 11 January 2002 the applicant was dismissed from the civil service.
6. On 20 February 2002 she challenged her dismissal before the Budapest Labour Court.
7. On 15 May 2003 the court found for the applicant, establishing that her dismissal had been unlawful, and awarded her compensation.
8. On appeal, on 17 March 2004 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the first instance decision, increased the award, but dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s compensation claims and, as to the applicant’s claim regarding the amount of certain additional allowances, it remitted the case to the first-instance court.
9. On 5 September 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance decision and remitted the case to the Labour Court.
10. In the resumed proceedings, on 7 June 2007 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
11. On 29 October 2008 the Budapest Regional Court reversed the first-instance decision and awarded compensation to the applicant. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court on 31 March 2010.
12. The applicant’s further pecuniary claims, also originating in the labour dispute, were finally adjudicated on 16 January 2013 by the Budapest High Court.
THE LAW
13. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
14. The Government contested that argument.
15. The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 February 2002 and ended on 16 January 2013. It thus lasted approximately ten years and eleven months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000–VII).
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 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.
18. The applicant also complained under Articles 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the outcome of the proceedings.
In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, 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.
19. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined.
The Government contested the claim.
20. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards her, on the basis of equity, EUR 5,800 under this head, also having regard to what was at stake in the litigation, a labour dispute.
21. The applicant made no separate costs claim.
22. 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, EUR 5,800 (five thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount 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 25 March 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley NaismithHelen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy