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 >>
TARDI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - 19478/03 [2007] ECHR 851 (23 October 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/851.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 851
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF TARDI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 19478/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
October 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 Tardi and Others 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,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A.
Mularoni,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S.
Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 19478/03) 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 five Hungarian nationals, Mr János Tardi, Mr and Mrs László
Sebők, Mrs Mátyásné Fejes and Ms Katalin
Tardi (“the applicants”), on 8 April 2003.
The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On
15 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicants were born in born in 1952, 1949, 1926, 1950 and 1980 and
live in Eger, Novaj and Budapest, respectively.
Under
the rules of Act no. 2 of 1993, the shareholders of agricultural
co-operatives became entitled to claim from the local “land
distribution committees”– which consisted of lay members
elected by the shareholders – the reallocation of plots of
arable land to them, at a value corresponding to that of the land
which had been surrendered by the original owners to the
co-operatives under the socialist legislation.
The
applicants, all in this legal position, filed their respective claims
with regard to the “Novaj 0124” plot, situated in the
Eger historical wine region, within the statutory 60-day time-limit
counted from the entry into force of the Act on 23 January 1993. The
distribution committee had an obligation under the procedural law to
proceed with such claims within a deadline of two months running from
the expiry of that time-limit. However, it was not until 17 February
1995 that it organised a meeting of the claimants of plot no. 0124.
The
decisions adopted at the meeting were susceptible to administrative
remedies. On appeal, on 19 December 1995 the Heves County
Agricultural Office, a State authority, quashed the decisions and
instructed the committee to resume the proceedings. The complainants'
procedural appeals against the remittal were dismissed by the Heves
County Regional Court and the Supreme Court on 28 June 1996 and 7
September 1998, respectively.
However,
at that point neither the distribution committee nor its legal
successor – the Agricultural Office itself – resumed the
administrative proceedings.
Meanwhile,
in September 1996 the Heves County Public Prosecutor's Office
challenged the legality of the decision of 19 December 1995. On
17 January 2000 the Supreme Court finally discontinued these
proceedings, since the prosecution's motion was incompatible ratione
materiae with the relevant provisions of the Code of
Administrative Procedure.
Once
the legality proceedings had been terminated, the Fejér County
Agricultural Office was appointed, at some time in 2002, to process
the Novaj land distribution. The applicants filed an administrative
appeal against the decisions of this body, arguing that the
individuals who had in the meantime been granted land belonging to
plot no. 0124 had not been so entitled.
Although
the applicants' administrative appeal was largely unsuccessful, the
actual owners nevertheless sought judicial review.
On
30 August 2002 the Fejér County Regional Court quashed the
administrative decisions adopted in the case hitherto and ordered the
Heves County Agricultural Office to resume its proceedings. It held
that the case had been unlawfully assigned to the Fejér County
Office.
On
12 April 2005 the Heves County Agricultural Office adopted certain
decisions in the case. The administrative appeals against these
decisions were to no avail. According to the information provided by
the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, the
judicial review of these decisions before the Nógrád
County Regional Court has not yet ended.
Criminal
proceedings which the applicants had sought against various officials
involved in the case were to no avail.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
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, pointing out that the land
distribution committees were not State authorities and that therefore
their acts or omissions, prior to 1995, did not engage the State's
liability.
The
Court considers that the period to be taken into consideration began
at the latest on 19 December 1995 when the Heves County Agricultural
Office, a State authority, quashed the decisions of the land
distribution committee. Moreover, it notes that the proceedings have
apparently not yet ended (paragraph 13 above). The period has thus
lasted over eleven years and nine months for two administrative
instances and two levels of court jurisdiction, at the date of
adoption of the present judgment.
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 the
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 applicants and the relevant authorities
and what was at stake for the applicants 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 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
The
applicants further complained that the length of the impugned
proceedings had infringed their right to the peaceful enjoyment of
their possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The
Government contended that this part of the application should be
declared inadmissible since the applicants did not exhaust domestic
remedies, not having filed an official liability claim under section
349 of the Civil Code. On the merits, they submitted that the
applicants could not claim to be the fully fledged owners of the land
which they sought to repossess, because – prior to a final
court decision – they were no more than shareholders of the
local co-operative, and did not dispose of the necessary elements of
ownership. In particular, they could not use the fields in question.
In these circumstances, their claims did not fall under the
protection of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The applicants
contested these arguments.
Having
regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(paragraph 21 above), the Court considers that, whilst this aspect of
the case is admissible, it is not necessary to examine it separately
on the merits (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19
February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Lastly,
the applicants complained that the criminal proceedings did not lead
to any conviction. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention. However, the Court observes that neither the Convention
nor its Protocols guarantee any right to press charges against third
persons or to secure convictions. It follows that this part of the
application is to be rejected as being incompatible ratione
materiae with the provisions of the Convention, pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.
IV. 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
In
respect of pecuniary damage, Mr Tardi claimed 143.3 million Hungarian
forints (HUF)
and EUR 8,269.5, plus accrued interest; Mr Sebők claimed
HUF 139.9 million
and EUR 6,359.3, plus accrued interest; Mrs Sebők claimed
HUF 23.5 million
and EUR 1,292.8, plus accrued interest; Mrs Fejes claimed HUF 40.4
million
and EUR 2,224.6, plus accrued interest, and Ms Tardi claimed HUF 7.7
million
and EUR 733.7, plus accrued interest.
In
respect of non-pecuniary damage, Mr Tardi and Mr Sebők each
claimed HUF 105 million,
Mrs Sebők claimed HUF 80 million,
and Mrs Fejes and Ms Tardi each claimed HUF 40 million.
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 applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them
each EUR 6,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
Mr
Tardi and Mr Sebők each claimed HUF 6 million
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court, without substantiating or itemising these expenditures.
The
Government contested these claims.
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. The Court notes that the applicants' costs claims have not
been substantiated by any relevant documents and must therefore be
rejected.
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 complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings and the alleged infringement of property
rights admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds that it is not necessary to examine
separately whether there has been a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the each applicant, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 6,000 (six 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 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
