European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GYOZO NAGY v. HUNGARY - 38891/06 [2010] ECHR 415 (30 March 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/415.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 415

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF GYŐZŐ NAGY v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 38891/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 March 2010

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 Győző Nagy v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 March 2010,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 38891/06) 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 Győző Nagy (“the applicant”), on 21 August 2006.

The applicant was represented by Mr L. Holzmann, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.

On 18 June 2009 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.

On 12 November 1998 the applicant was charged with fraud and forging documents. On 28 April 2000 the Miskolc District Court found him guilty. On appeal, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court on 5 June 2001.

In the resumed proceedings, the District Court acquitted the applicant on 11 December 2002. This judgment was quashed by the Regional Court on 3 June 2004.

In the resumed proceedings, the District Court found the applicant guilty on 13 July 2005. On appeal, the Regional Court reversed this judgment and finally acquitted the applicant on 16 March 2006.

THE LAW

The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that argument.

The Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration lasted seven years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.

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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). 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.

Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 1,320,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, on account of lost income, and EUR 15,000 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 applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him EUR 4,800 under that head.

The applicant also claimed altogether EUR 9,720 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and those incurred before the Court. In the latter respect, he also submitted an agreement concluded with his lawyer, according to which he would pay 20% of any amount awarded by the Court to his lawyer for the costs of his representation in the proceedings before the Court. The Government contested these claims.

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. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 covering costs under all heads.

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 the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i) EUR 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(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 applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President