SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SZEBELLÉDI v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 38329/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 June 2007
FINAL
21/09/2007
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Szebellédi v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar.
Having deliberated in private on 31 May 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 38329/04) 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 Ferenc Szebellédi (“the applicant”), on 2 August 2004.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
3. On 6 February 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Badacsony.
5. In the context of a 1993 dispute concerning a loan given to the applicant by a savings bank, in 1995 execution proceedings were instituted against the applicant.
6. On 21 January 1999 the applicant filed an action with the Tapolca District Court requesting that the execution be halted or limited. On 8 March 2000 the District Court suspended the execution. On 14 November 2000 the Veszprém County Regional Court dismissed the applicant's motion for bias.
7. Hearings took place on 17 April and 18 September 2001, and on 14 March, 9 May, 11 July, 3 October and 28 November 2002.
8. On 13 February 2003 the District Court decided to discontinue the execution but dismissed the applicant's other related claims. On 16 June 2003 he appealed concerning the latter issues.
9. On 28 January 2004 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed that part of the decision of 13 February 2003 which had been appealed.
10. On 13 April 2004 the Veszprém District Court was appointed to rehear the case. On 17 May 2004 the applicant modified his action. For reasons of competence, the District Court forwarded the file to the Regional Court on 3 June 2004. On 10 September 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and referred the case back to the District Court.
11. Hearings were held on 11 November and 16 December 2004, and on 20 January, 15 February and 8 March 2005.
12. On 24 March 2005 the District Court partly found for the applicant.
13. On 31 August 2005 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed this decision.
14. In the resumed proceedings, on 1 December 2005 the District Court held a hearing. On 9 December 2005 it appointed an expert who presented his opinion on 17 February 2006. According to the information in the Court's case file, the proceedings are apparently still pending.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
15. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads insofar as relevant as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
16. The Government contested that argument.
17. The period to be taken into consideration began on 21 January 1999. According to the information available in the case file, the procedure was still pending on the date of adoption of the present judgment. Accordingly, it has lasted nearly eight years and five months to date, for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
18. The Court notes 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.
B. Merits
19. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
20. 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).
21. 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 in the instant application 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
22. 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
23. The applicant claimed altogether 6.2 million Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] plus accrued interest in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 2.5 million[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
24. The Government contested these claims.
25. 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 applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 5,600 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
26. The applicant also claimed HUF 370,643[3] for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
27. The Government contested the claim.
28. According to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 400 under this head.
C. Default interest
29. 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 application admissible;
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 from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 5,600 (five thousand six hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 400 (four hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 21 June 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
[1] 25,200 euros (EUR)
[2] EUR 10,200
[3] EUR 1,500
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy