SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SZENTESI v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 19558/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 June 2012
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Szentesi v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 May 2012,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 19558/09) 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 Sándor Szentesi (“the applicant”), on 6 April 2009.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 13 April 2011 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 31 August 1999 the Budapest and Pest County Regional Pension Insurance Directorate established the applicant’s service years and the amount of his old age pension. The applicant appealed, challenging the amount of service years recognised. The second-instance administrative authority accepted the claim in part on 6 January 2000. This decision was later modified slightly ex officio to the applicant’s advantage on 23 February 2000.
6. On 13 April 2000 the applicant sought judicial review against the Pension Insurance Directorate’s decision before the Budapest Labour Court. The court dismissed his action on 25 March 2004.
7. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which quashed the Labour Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 1 February 2005.
8. In the resumed proceedings the Labour Court again dismissed the applicant’s action on 16 November 2007. The Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment on 24 November 2008, which was served on the applicant on 7 January 2009.
9. The domestic courts relied on documentary evidence, the opinion of two forensic accountant experts and testimonies of the parties.
THE LAW
10. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11. The Government contested that argument.
12. The period to be taken into consideration began in September 1999 and ended on 7 January 2009. It thus lasted nine years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
13. 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).
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. Moreover, the applicant complained, relying on Article 13 of the Convention, that the domestic courts had not taken into consideration the evidence submitted by him and the deficiencies of the expert reports. The Court observes that this complaint raises no separate issue as the one examined under Article 6 of the Convention and should therefore also be declared inadmissible.
17. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that due to the fact that the authorities had deducted his debts from his wife’s income, his wife divorced him. Even assuming interference by the domestic authorities, the Court finds no direct link between the measure in question and the prejudice suffered. It follows that this complaint should therefore likewise be declared inadmissible.
18. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him EUR 8,000.
19. 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, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(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 12 June 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy