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 >>
SIRKO AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - 44822/04 [2008] ECHR 118 (5 February 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/118.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 118
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF SIRKÓ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 44822/04)
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 Sirkó 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. 44822/04) 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, Mrs Mihályné Sirkó,
Mrs Józsefné Huszár, Mrs Ferencné
Andó and Mrs Róbertné Galamb (“the
applicants”), on 8 November 2004
The
applicants were represented by Mr L. Kovács, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On
11 January 2007 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 1919, 1941, 1947 and 1955, and live in Etes,
Bátonyterenye, Salgótarján and Etes,
respectively.
In
a real estate dispute, on 23 June 1994 Mr S. and others brought an
action for a servitude (szolgalom) against the applicants.
After
three hearings, the preparation of an expert opinion and the
identification of a plaintiff's successor, on 18 June 1998 the
Salgótarján District Court found for the plaintiffs. On
appeal, on 12 November 1998 the Nógrád County Regional
Court quashed this decision.
In
the resumed proceedings, on 4 March 1999 the plaintiffs changed their
action and claimed ownership. Subsequently, the proceedings were
suspended pending the outcome of an underlying land register
procedure. The latter ended on 8 January 2001. On 23 April 2001 the
plaintiffs' representative requested the resumption of the principal
case.
The
proceedings resumed on 6 June 2001. After several hearings and the
opinion of an expert, on 2 December 2003 the District Court
dismissed the action.
On
appeal, on 11 May 2004 the Regional Court changed this decision and
granted the plaintiffs the servitude they sought.
On
20 September 2004 the applicants requested the re-opening of the
case. On 27 April 2005 the Regional Court admitted their request.
In
the reopened proceedings, on 8 December 2005 the District Court
established that the plaintiffs' adverse possession of the servitude
in question had not taken place. It ordered the servitude to be
deleted from the land register.
On
appeal, on 25 April 2006 the Regional Court changed this decision and
upheld its decision of 11 May 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 23 June 1994 and ended
on 25 April 2006. It thus lasted eleven years and ten months for two
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 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 in the instant case 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
applicants also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings.
In
so far as the applicants' 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 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, which are
therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the
national courts (García Ruiz v. Spain [GC],
no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I).
In
the present case, the Court does not discern any indication in the
case file that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings
were otherwise unfair. Moreover, it notes that the domestic courts
decided, in proceedings devoid of any sign of arbitrariness, a
civil-law dispute between private parties. There is, therefore, no
appearance of a violation of the applicants' rights under Article 1
of Protocol No. 1. 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
applicants, jointly, claimed 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
pecuniary damage. Moreover, they each claimed EUR 8,000 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 applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage and finds it appropriate to award each of them
the full sum claimed under that head, i.e. EUR 8,000.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicants also claimed EUR 1,960 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and EUR 960 in respect of those incurred
before the Court. In connection to the latter item, they submitted an
invoice prepared by their lawyer.
The
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 rejects the claim
for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it
reasonable to award the applicants, jointly, the entirety of the sum
claimed in respect of the proceedings before the Court, i.e. EUR 960.
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 each applicant EUR 8,000 (eight
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and to pay them,
jointly, EUR 960 (nine hundred and sixty 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, within three months from the
date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention;
(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
