British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
BAKONYI v. HUNGARY - 45311/05 [2007] ECHR 366 (3 May 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/366.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 366
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF BAKONYI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 45311/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
3 May
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 Bakonyi v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Ms D.
Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and
Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 April 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 45311/05) 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 Mihály
Bakonyi (“the applicant”), on 21 June 2004.
The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On
13 March 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
The
applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Szeged.
In
September 1997 the applicant was dismissed from work. On 12 November
1997 he challenged the employer's decision in court.
After
a hearing on 30 April 1998 before the Budapest Labour Court, on 4
June 1998 the case was transferred to the Pest Central District
Court. This court discontinued the proceedings on 21 October 1999,
because the applicant, although properly summoned, failed to appear.
At his request, the case was continued on 22 February 2000 but was
immediately stayed, again at his request. He demanded the
continuation of the proceedings on 4 August 2000.
After
a hearing on 26 April 2001, on 2 May 2002 the District Court found
that it had no jurisdiction in the case and requested the appropriate
designation by the Supreme Court. On 22 May 2002 the Budapest Labour
Court was appointed to hear the case.
After
a hearing on 21 January 2003, on 6 May 2003 the Budapest Labour Court
found for the applicant, established that his dismissal had been
unlawful and awarded him compensation.
On
appeal, on 28 November 2003 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in
essence the first instance decision, increased the award, but
dismissed the remainder of the applicant's compensation claims.
On
23 March 2004 the applicant filed a petition for review. On 26
January 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. This decision
was served on the applicant on 7 March 2005.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings was
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads 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 contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 12 November 1997 and
ended on 7 March 2005. It thus lasted almost seven years and four
months for three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Court notes that this complaint 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
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). The Court reiterates that special diligence is
necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, judgment
of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 230-D, p. 39, § 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
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
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 case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that in the instant case 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant also complained about the outcome of the proceedings. In
this connection, he relied on Articles 5, 6, 8, 9 10 and 11 of the
Convention.
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, the Court observes that there is nothing in the
case file indicating that the domestic courts lacked impartiality or
that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. Moreover,
the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance of a
violation of his other Convention rights. It follows that this part
of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35
§ 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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
The
applicant claimed 100 million euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
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 – whilst
having regard to what was at stake for the applicant, but also to the
delay imputable to him – it awards him EUR 3,000 under that
head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant made no claim under this head.
C. Default interest
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
Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
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 3,000
(three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 3 May 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
