SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SEFCSUK v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 37501/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 December 2008
FINAL
09/03/2009
This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Sefcsuk v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 18 November 2008,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 37501/06) 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 two Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Károly Sefcsuk (“the applicants”), on 25 June 2006.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
3. On 25 February 2008 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1943 and 1944 respectively and live in Budapest.
5. On 3 August 1992 the applicants brought an action challenging an administrative decision expropriating their land. After two hearings, on 10 May 1993 the case was suspended pending an underlying dispute concerning the situation in the land register.
6. On 29 August 2002 the case was transferred to the Pest County Regional Court as this was the competent court to deal with the case.
7. The proceedings concerning the land register were terminated by the Érd District Land Registry on 26 March 2004. The applicants did not appeal to the Pest County Land Registry.
8. After two further hearings, on 15 February 2005 the Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ action. The court held that the authorities involved in the expropriation had proceeded in compliance with the law.
9. On 2 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal. This decision was served on their lawyer on 27 December 2005.
10. On 16 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants’ petition for review as inadmissible, since it did not meet the procedural requirements.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. The applicants 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...”
12. The Government contested that argument.
13. 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 after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at that stage. The Court notes in that connection that the case had already been pending for three months by then.
14. The period in question ended on 16 May 2006. It thus lasted over thirteen years and six months. However, for the Court, the period slightly in excess of six months which corresponded to the applicants’ futile petition for review cannot be imputed to the State and must be deducted from the overall length. The relevant duration is therefore thirteen years for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
15. 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
16. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
17. 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).
18. 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 concludes 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.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings concerning the land register which ended in 2004.
20. The Court observes that the applicants did not appeal against the District Land Registry’s 2004 decision (see paragraph 7 above). This complaint is therefore inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
21. 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
22. Jointly, the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 11,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
23. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
24. 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 applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and that it should award the full sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
25. The applicants made no claim under this head.
C. Default interest
26. 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 applicants, jointly, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 11,000 (eleven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Hungarian forints 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 applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 December 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy