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 >>
GLOCKLER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - 17628/04 [2008] ECHR 115 (5 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/115.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 115
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF GLÖCKLER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 17628/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5
February 2008
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 Glöckler and Others v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
András
Baka,
Riza
Türmen,
Mindia
Ugrekhelidze,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
judges,
Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 January 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 17628/04) 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 four Hungarian nationals, Mr and Mrs Zoltán Glöckler
and Mr and Mrs Zoltán Weich (“the applicants”), on
12 March 2004.
The
applicants were represented by Mr Cs. Tímár, a lawyer
practising in Pécs. The Hungarian Government
(“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl,
Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On
23 November 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
applicants were born in 1962, 1966, 1956 and 1954 respectively and
live in Pécs.
On
22 September 1993 Mr and Mrs Glöckler brought an action against
Mrs and Mr Zoltán Weich and the latter’s brother, Mr
László Weich. In the context of a real estate dispute,
the plaintiffs sought the invalidation of a donation contract
executed between the respondents.
On
7 December 1993 Mr László Weich died. The proceedings
were subsequently interrupted. The deceased respondent’s
successor, Mr Zoltán Weich, was only identified by the parties
in a submission made to the court on 8 September 1995.
After
three hearings, on 13 May 1996 the Pécs District Court found
for the plaintiffs.
On
5 March 1997 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed this decision
and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
In
the resumed proceedings, on 14 April 1999 the District Court again
found for the plaintiffs, after having held several hearings and
obtained the opinion of an expert.
On
appeal, on 21 September 1999 the Regional Court reversed the
first-instance decision and dismissed the plaintiffs’ action.
On
27 March 2001 the Supreme Court quashed this decision and remitted
the case to the second-instance court.
In
the resumed second-instance proceedings, on 11 September 2001 the
Regional Court upheld the decision of 14 April 1999. This decision
was upheld by the Supreme Court’s review bench on 13 January
2004.
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.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 22 September 1993 and
ended on 13 January 2004. It thus lasted over ten years and three
months. However, the Court considers that the period of one year and
nine months (from 7 December 1993 until 8 September 1995), which
corresponded to the identification by the parties of the deceased
respondent’s successor, cannot be imputed to the authorities
and must be deducted from the overall length. The relevant period is
therefore eight years and six months for three 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 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 finds 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. 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
Each
of the applicants claimed 2 million Hungarian forints (HUF)
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government contested the claim.
The
Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards each of
them EUR 3,200 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants claimed, jointly, HUF 500,000
for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
The
Government contested the claim.
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 applicants’
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 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 each of the applicants, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may
be chargeable,
in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Hungarian
forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 5 February 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
