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 >>
KAROLYNE BALOGH v. HUNGARY - 1107/04 [2007] ECHR 979 (27 November 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/979.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 979
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF KÁROLYNÉ BALOGH v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 1107/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
November 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 Károlyné Balogh v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr R.
Türmen,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs D.
Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and
Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 November 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 1107/04) 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, Mrs Károlyné
Balogh (“the applicant”), on 26 November 2003.
The
applicant was represented by Mr V. Masenkó-Mavi, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On
14 December 2005 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
applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Nyíregyháza.
On
12 January 1996 the applicant brought an action against her
neighbours with a view to terminating their common ownership of a
house.
After
having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert,
on 25 November 1996 the Nyíregyháza District Court
dismissed the action, holding that no physical division was possible,
whereas a buyout or the auctioning of the house would cause the
respondents disproportionate damage.
On
17 September 1997 the Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Regional
Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.
On
13 May 1998 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted the
case to the second-instance court.
In
the resumed proceedings, on 29 August 2000 the Regional Court ordered
the respondents to buy out the applicant's share of property.
On
26 February 2003 the Supreme Court upheld this decision. Its judgment
was served on the applicant on 17 June 2003.
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 as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 12 January 1996 and
ended on 17 June 2003. It thus lasted over seven years and five
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 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
Relying
on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant also
complained about the unfairness and outcome of the proceedings.
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 § 1 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. These are 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 considers that there is nothing in the
case file disclosing any appearance that the courts lacked
impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. 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 4.5 million Hungarian forints (HUF)
in respect of non-pecuniary damage relating to the protraction of the
case, as well as HUF 13.15 million
in respect of the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage on account of the protraction of the
proceedings. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards her EUR 2,400
under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed HUF 500,000
for costs and expenses of an unclear nature.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
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 applicant's costs
claim has 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 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 2,400 (two
thousand four hundred 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 27 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
