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 >>
TOT v. HUNGARY AND ITALY - 44746/04 [2008] ECHR 116 (5 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/116.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 116
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF TÓT v. HUNGARY AND ITALY
(Application
no. 44746/04)
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 Tót v. Hungary and Italy,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
András
Baka,
Rıza
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. 44746/04) against the
Republic of Hungary and Italy 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 György Tót.
On
13 February 2007 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Hungarian
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
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
THE FACTS
The
applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Üröm.
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
The
applicant is a retired truck driver. Between 1982 and 1989 he worked
for an Italian company, but as the employee of Hungarocamion, a
Hungarian transportation company. The Italian company paid
Hungarocamion a certain monthly sum corresponding to the work
performed by the applicant. For his part, the applicant received the
salary from Hungarocamion stipulated in his employment contract.
Since
he allegedly did not receive the whole sum transferred by the Italian
company to Hungarocamion, the applicant initiated civil proceedings
against the Italian company. The Italian courts partly found for him
on 19 March 1997 and, finally at second-instance, on 10 May 2001.
Meanwhile,
on 30 April 1993 the applicant brought an action against
Hungarocamion before the Budapest Labour Court, alleging that the
respondent had not transferred to him all the money which it had
received from its Italian partner as his salary.
On
2 February, 31 August and 26 October 1994 the Labour Court held
hearings.
Upon
the applicant's request, the Labour Court suspended the proceedings
on 10 November 1994 in view of the applicant's Italian court case.
The proceedings only resumed on 7 February 2000 at the applicant's
request.
On
15 February 2000 the Labour Court invited the applicant to submit the
certified translation of the documents produced in the Italian
proceedings. The applicant complied with this order on 24 May 2000.
On
30 May and 10 October 2001, 9 January, 17 April and 11 September
2002, 28 May and 10 September 2003, the Labour Court held hearings.
On
24 September 2003 the Labour Court dismissed the applicant's action,
finding that the respondent's salary policy had been in compliance
with the law in force at the relevant time. The Labour Court relied
on documentary evidence and testimony given by witnesses and the
parties.
On
appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance
decision on 6 May 2004.
On
4 July 2004 the applicant lodged a petition for review with the
Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 13 April 2005.
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, laid
down in 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
Hungarian Government contested that argument.
As
regards these proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration
began on 30 April 1993 and ended on 13 April 2005. It thus lasted
nearly twelve years before three levels of jurisdiction. From this
period, the length of the Italian proceedings (from 10 November 1994
until 7 February 2000, nearly six years and three months) should be
deducted since the Hungarian authorities were not responsible or able
to speed them up. Accordingly, the relevant period is five years and
nine months.
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 Hungarian 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The
Court observes that the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the outcome and unfairness of the
proceedings. The Court notes that these complaints are
essentially of a fourth-instance nature: there is no indication in
the case file that the domestic courts lacked impartiality or that
the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. 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.
Insofar
as the above complaint may be understood to be directed against
Italy, the Court observes that these proceedings ended on 10 May 2001
with the final decision of the second-instance court. However, the
application was only lodged on 8 July 2004. It follows that
this part of the application has been introduced outside the
six-month time-limit prescribed by Article 35 § 1 and must be
rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
It
follows that these remaining complaints must be declared inadmissible
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 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 115,726,753 Hungarian forints (HUF)
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The
Hungarian 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, on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 2,500 for
non- pecuniary damages.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant also claimed EUR 3,170 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and the Court.
The
Hungarian Government did not express an opinion on the matter
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 finds it appropriate
to award the global sum of EUR 400 to cover the various costs.
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 Hungarian 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 2,500 (two
thousand five 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 Hungarian State at the
rate applicable at the date of the 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;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's 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
