European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF MÉSZÁROS v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 23559/09)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

12 March 2013

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Mészáros v. Hungary,

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

          Peer Lorenzen, President,
          András Sajó,
          Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 February 2013,

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

PROCEDURE




  The case originated in an application (no. 23559/09) 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 Ervin Mészáros (“the applicant”), on 28 April 2009.




  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.




  On 7 December 2011 the application was communicated to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE




  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Taliándörögd.




  In October 1999 the Hungarian Railway Company received authorisation to lead wires through the applicant’s property. On 7 April 2000 the applicant received 1,858,536 Hungarian forints (HUF) in compensation from the Railway Company.




  Nevertheless, in October 2000 the applicant brought an action in damages against the Hungarian Railway Company before the Veszprém County Regional Court, claiming that the compensation given did not cover the loss in the value of his property. The court appointed three real estate experts. On 24 February 2003 the court gave judgment, finding in part for the applicant.




  This judgment was quashed on appeal by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 17 September 2003.




  In the resumed proceedings two new expert opinions were obtained. On 6 March 2007 the District Court gave judgment. It ordered the respondent to pay the applicant HUF 4,541,464, and dismissed the remainder of his claims. This judgment was upheld on appeal by the Győr Court of Appeal on 19 March 2008.




  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It upheld the Court of Appeal’s judgment on 2 October 2008. This decision was served on the applicant on 29 October 2008.

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 period in consideration began in October 2000 and ended on 2 October 2008. It thus lasted eight years before three court instances. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this part of the application 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, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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.




  The applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings, in particular concerning the choice of experts and the differences in expert reports. In so far as this 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 (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I). In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the 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 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.




  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant made a global claim of EUR 660,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government contested the claim. 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 awards him EUR 2,900 under this head.




  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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

1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

 

3.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement and within three months, EUR 2,900 (two thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(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;

 

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 March 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Françoise Elens-Passos                                                           Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President