SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43657/98
by György LÉVAI and György NAGY
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 12 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 May 1998,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr György Lévai and Mr György Nagy, are Hungarian nationals, who were born in 1959 and 1952, respectively, and live in Szigethalom, Hungary.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
A. Particular circumstances of the case
On 8 February 1993 the applicants were dismissed by their employer, a car-manufacturer.
On 4 March 1993 they brought an action before the Pest County Labour Court for unlawful dismissal.
On 24 November 1993 the Labour Court held a hearing and transferred the case to the Economic Collegium of the Pest County Regional Court. The Labour Court observed that liquidation proceedings were pending against the applicants’ former employer.
On appeal, on 28 February 1994 the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court’s decision and remitted the case to it.
On 31 August 1994 the Labour Court decided that the applicants’ dismissal had been unlawful. It transferred the applicants’ pecuniary claims to the Economic Collegium of the Regional Court.
On appeal, on 27 February 1995 the Regional Court quashed the Labour Court’s decision and remitted the case to it for the second time.
On 28 September 1995 the Labour Court annulled the applicants’ dismissal for unlawfulness. On 25 March 1996 the Regional Court upheld this judgment.
Subsequently the applicants brought various pecuniary claims before the Labour Court, concerning outstanding wages and their severance pay. On 3 July 1996 the Labour Court held a hearing, established its lack of competence and transferred the file to the Bankruptcy and Liquidation Section of the Regional Court, which was in charge of the defendant company’s liquidation.
On 22 October 1996 the Supreme Court, acting as a review instance, quashed the decisions of 28 September 1995 and 25 March 1996. Simultaneously, it discontinued those proceedings and transferred that part of the applicants’ claims to the Regional Court.
In the context of the liquidation proceedings, on 18 December 1996 the Regional Court held a hearing and ordered the liquidation trustee in charge of the defendant company to complete the case-file.
By a decision of 29 January 1997, the Regional Court annulled the applicants’ dismissal. On 24 April 1997 the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance, upheld this decision, declaring that the applicants had indeed been unlawfully dismissed.
Concerning the quantification of the applicants’ claims, the Regional Court held a hearing on 30 June 1997 and, on 3 July 1997, it awarded 1,827,792 Hungarian forints (HUF) to the first applicant and HUF 899,264 to the second applicant, for outstanding wages and severance pay. The decision was immediately enforceable.
On 8 September and 24 November 1997 the Regional Court held more hearings and, on 28 November 1997, it made further awards of HUF 681,620 to the first applicant and HUF 305,685 to the second applicant, for loss of revenue. The Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damages.
On the applicants’ appeal, on 26 November 1998 the Supreme Court, acting as a second instance, upheld the dismissal of the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damages, whilst quashing the remainder of the first instance decision – to the extent that it was disputed on appeal – and remitted the claims in question to the first instance court.
The proceedings before the Regional Court were resumed on 24 March 1999. Another hearing took place on 30 June 1999. On 22 July 1999 the Regional Court appointed an expert accountant.
On 23 May 2000 the expert presented his report to the Regional Court.
On 17 August 2000 the applicants objected to the expert’s opinion. On 30 August 2000 the Regional Court held a hearing and ordered the expert to supplement his report within 15 days.
On 10 January 2001 another hearing took place.
On 29 March 2001 the Regional Court awarded, under various heads, the amounts of HUF 58,200, 69,465 and 549,235, plus accrued interest, to the first applicant, and HUF 40,800, plus accrued interest, to the second applicant.
On 18 April 2001 the applicants appealed to the Supreme Court. These proceedings are still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 339 (1) of the Civil Code provides that any person who unlawfully causes damage to another shall be liable to pay compensation.
According to Article 349, the official liability of the State administration may be established only if the relevant ordinary remedies have been exhausted or have not been found adequate to redress the damage. Unless otherwise specified, this provision also covers the liability for damage caused by the courts or the prosecution authorities.
THE LAW
1. The applicants’ first complaint relates to the length of the proceedings and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in its relevant parts, as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government argue that the applicants have not exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under Hungarian law in that they did not bring an official liability action under Article 349 of the Hungarian Civil Code, seeking compensation for the protracted proceedings. The applicants contest this.
Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in its relevant parts, provides as follows:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ...”
The Court reiterates that, in respect of the length of civil proceedings still pending, a remedy can only be considered effective if it can be brought rapidly during those proceedings and if it provides direct and speedy protection of the rights guaranteed by Article 6 § 1. A further set of civil court proceedings, like an official liability action under Article 349 of the Hungarian Civil Code, cannot be regarded as such redress or, therefore, an effective remedy (see Erdős v. Hungary (dec.), no. 38937/97, 3 May 2001, unpublished; Úri v. Hungary, application no. 31973/96, Commission decision (final) of 10 September 1998, unpublished; Mr T.K. and Mrs T.K. v. Hungary, application no. 26209/95, Commission decision of 21 May 1997, unpublished).
The Court further notes that the Government have not referred to the availability of any other domestic procedure which would have allowed the applicants to obtain other forms of redress, such as an acceleration of the proceedings (cf. Holzinger v. Austria (No. 1) (preliminary objections), no. 23459/94, §§ 22 to 25, 30 January 2001).
In these circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicants’ complaint cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
2. The Court notes that it has not been disputed that the proceedings began on 4 March 1993 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted nine years before three levels of jurisdiction.
According to the applicants, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation.
The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicants’ conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.
3. The remainder of the applicants’ complaints concerns the contents of the decisions taken so far by the domestic courts and their allegedly unfair procedure. In this respect they invoke Articles 6 § 1, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court considers that the applicants’ submissions – in so far as these complaints cannot be considered premature – do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as regards fairness, or any other violation of the applicants’ rights under the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected under Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicants’ complaint relating to the excessive length of the proceedings instituted on 4 March 1993 before Pest County Labour Court;
Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy