SECOND SECTION
CASE OF TURUL KFT. v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 46218/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 February 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Turul Kft. v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 January 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 46218/09) 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 company registered under Hungarian law, Turul Kft (“the applicant”), on 25 August 2009.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 3 January 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant is a limited liability company with its seat in Lovas.
5. The Veszprém County Administrative Office rejected the request of the applicant, a real-estate developer, for a building permit to construct a three-flat condominium. The Office was of the view that the project was irreconcilable with the planned location, the historical neighbourhood of Veszprém town.
6. On 21 June 2001 the applicant challenged this decision in court.
7. On 25 March 2003 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the administrative decision and remitted the case to the administrative authorities.
8. In the resumed administrative proceedings, on 2 March 2007 the applicant’s request was again dismissed.
9. On 18 April 2007 the applicant renewed its action.
10. On 31 October 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the action, holding that the administrative decisions had been given in compliance with the law.
11. On 25 February 2009 the Supreme Court dismissed, on the merits, the applicant’s petition for review (service: 14 April 2009).
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
13. The Government contested that argument.
14. The period to be taken into consideration began on 21 June 2001 and ended on 14 April 2009. It thus lasted about seven years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction following an administrative procedure.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
15. 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).
16. 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.
17. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 148,150 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
18. The Government contested the claim.
19. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards it EUR 2,900 under that head.
20. The applicant also claimed EUR 2,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
21. The Government contested the claim.
22. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, which was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 under this head.
23. 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.
24. The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome and the fairness of the case.
In so far as the applicant’s 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, there is no appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary.
As regards Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the Court considers that the authorities’ decision not to endorse the applicant’s real estate development project was taken in pursuit of the general interest, namely to maintain the historical aspect of the neighbourhood, and did not impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant, also in view of the State’s wide margin of appreciation in questions of town planning.
It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
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 the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one 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 18 February 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley NaismithNebojša Vučinić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy