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 >>
SZEBELLEDI v. HUNGARY - 38329/04 [2007] ECHR 507 (21 June 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/507.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 507
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF SZEBELLÉDI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 38329/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21
June 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:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr M.
Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Ms D.
Jočienė,
Mr D. 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
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.
The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
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
The
applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Badacsony.
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.
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.
Hearings
took place on 17 April and 18 September 2001, and on 14 March, 9 May,
11 July, 3 October and 28 November 2002.
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.
On
28 January 2004 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed that part of
the decision of 13 February 2003 which had been appealed.
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.
Hearings
were held on 11 November and 16 December 2004, and on 20 January, 15
February and 8 March 2005.
On
24 March 2005 the District Court partly found for the applicant.
On
31 August 2005 the Somogy County Regional Court quashed this
decision.
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
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...”
The
Government contested that argument.
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
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
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 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).
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
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 altogether 6.2 million Hungarian forints (HUF)
plus accrued interest in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 2.5
million
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested these claims.
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
The
applicant also claimed HUF 370,643
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court.
The
Government contested the claim.
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
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 application admissible;
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 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;
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. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
