SECOND SECTION
CASE OF ISTVÁN KOCSIS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 35000/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 October 2013
This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of István Kocsis v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 35000/07) 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 István Kocsis (“the applicant”), on 6 August 2007.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr B. Szentkláray, 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 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Miskolc.
5. In 1986 the applicant, together with some other co-accused, was charged with aggravated fraud and other related criminal offences and placed in pre-trial detention. By its decision of 4 July 1990 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court party discontinued the criminal proceedings by reason of a general amnesty. As to the remainder of the charges, the applicant was acquitted by the judgment of the Regional Court on 25 October 1990. The Office of the General Attorney appealed but withdrew its appeal on 25 April 1991. The Supreme Court established by its decision of 16 May 1991 that the Regional Court’s judgment had entered into force on 2 May 1991. This decision was served on the applicant and the other defendants on 31 March 1992.
6. On 21 May 1993 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the Hungarian State for the late service of the final judicial decision. Subsequently he extended his action to include further respondents, the Office of the General Attorney, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Chief Police Department and the Supreme Court.
7. By its decision of 26 March 1997, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. On appeal, the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance court, partly upheld the first-instance decision, and as to the complaint against the Supreme Court, remitted the case to the first-instance court. The applicant lodged a petition for review. On 14 May 2001 the Supreme Court upheld the second-instance decision concerning the complaint against the Hungarian State, and remitted the case to the Regional Court as regards the remainder of the respondents.
8. On 27 September 2003 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court partly found for the applicant in the proceedings against the Supreme Court and ordered this latter to pay him 1,900,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,400 euros (EUR)) plus accrued interests in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
9. The Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, increased the amount for the non-pecuniary damage and remitted the case to the first-instance as regards the amount of the pecuniary damage.
10. In the second set of first-instance proceedings the Regional Court issued its decision on 11 July 2006 ordering the respondent to pay the applicant HUF 3,138,336 (approximately EUR 10,500).
11. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal decreased the amount payable to the applicant to HUF 112,349 (approximately EUR 380).
12. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. By its decision of 29 November 2007 the Supreme Court increased the amount to HUF 200,000 (approximately EUR 670).
13. As regards the remainder of the action against the Office of the General Attorney and the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Chief Police Department, the Regional Court issued its decision in the resumed first-instance proceedings on 14 March 2007, dismissing the applicant’s action. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Debrecen Court of Appeal on 26 June 2007.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
14. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
15. The Government contested that argument.
16. The period to be taken into consideration began on 21 May 1993 and ended on 29 November 2007 (see paragraph 12 above). It thus lasted approximately fourteen years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000–VII).
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 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.
19. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 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.
20. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 33,874,468 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 114,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined.
The Government contested the claims.
21. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR 8,100 under this head.
22. The applicant also claimed HUF 3,339,049 (approximately EUR 11,200) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and HUF 937,130 (approximately EUR 3,100) for those incurred before the Court.
23. 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 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.
24. 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 Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 8,100 (eight thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (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 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Seçkin ErelPeer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy