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 >>
GOGOS v. HUNGARY - 20014/04 [2008] ECHR 228 (27 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/228.html
Cite as:
[2008] ECHR 228
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF GŐGÖS v. HUNGARY
(Applications
nos. 20014/04 and 25348/04 (joined))
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
March 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 Gőgös v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Rıza Türmen,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in two applications
(nos. 20014/04 and 25348/04) 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, Mr István Gőgös (“the
applicant”), on 16 April and 24 May 2004 respectively.
The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
On
2 February and 6 October 2006,
respectively, the Court decided to give notice of the
applications to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
applications at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Slovenské Darmoty,
Slovakia.
On
15 June 1992 some of his relatives brought an action against the
applicant seeking termination of their common ownership of a house.
The applicant brought counterclaims which he subsequently modified
several times.
In
the course of the first-instance proceedings, the applicant
challenged, in vain, the Budapest II/III District Court for bias,
arguing that the President of the court – who was not sitting
on the bench hearing the case – and the plaintiffs' lawyer were
sisters-in-law.
At
the hearings on 20 October 1992 and 14 March 1996 Judge E., who was
in charge of the case, instructed the plaintiffs to complete their
action in a comprehensive form. Subsequently, the case was assigned
to Judge H.
After
having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of three
experts, on 3 May 1999 the District Court ordered the auction of the
property at issue and determined the parties' respective shares of
the sale price.
The
applicant appealed to the Budapest Regional Court. In the course of
the second-instance proceedings, his two further motions for bias –
submitted against the Regional Court's bench hearing the case –
were unsuccessful.
After
having obtained a further expert opinion, on 12 December 2000
the Regional Court upheld in essence the District Court's judgment.
It finally set the minimum price for the house in question at 27
million Hungarian forints (HUF).
On
25 February 2002 execution was ordered. The house in question was
auctioned for HUF 41.8 million on 25 April 2002.
On
26 November 2003 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition
for review. The decision was served on the applicant in
February 2004.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF APPLICATIONS
The
Court notes that the subject matter of application nos.
20014/04 and 25348/04 is identical. It is therefore
appropriate to join them, in application of Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court.
II. 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 ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 November 1992,
when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition
took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time
that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings at the time. The Court notes that the proceedings had
already been pending for over four months on that date.
The
period in question ended on 26 November 2003. It thus lasted over
eleven years 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 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
applications (see Frydlender, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court notes 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.
III. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
The
applicant also complained of the unfairness of the proceedings. He
submitted that the District Court was not impartial in that his first
motion for bias was rejected despite the relation between the
plaintiffs' lawyer and the President of the court, the latter being
responsible for the reassignment of his case to Judge H.
The
Court notes the applicant has not shown that he complained about the
failure of his first motion for bias in his appeal on the merits
submitted to the Budapest Regional Court, as allowed for by section
18(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It follows that this part of
the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the
Convention.
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
The
applicants claimed 150 million Hungarian forints
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
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 him EUR
8,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant made no costs claim.
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
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
applications 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 8,000
(eight thousand 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 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 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
