European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF ÁGNES KOVÁCS v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 12089/07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

24 September 2013

 

 

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

 




In the case of Ágnes Kovács 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 Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

     Having deliberated in private on 3 September 2013,

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

PROCEDURE




  The case originated in an application (no. 12089/07) 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, Ms Ágnes Kovács (“the applicant”), on 24 February 2007.




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




  On 13 September 2010 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application 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 1937 and lives in Budapest.




  On 18 December 1999 the applicant brought a labour action against her former employer for unlawful dismissal.




  After holding several hearings and obtaining expert evidence, the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the action on 28 February 2005. The applicant appealed.




  On 26 August 2005 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, reversed the first-instance decision and ordered the defendant to pay the applicant 180,582 Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] in unpaid employment benefits plus interests and HUF 200,000[2] in non-pecuniary damages. The applicant filed a petition for review.




  On 25 October 2006 the Supreme Court decided that the petition had not disclosed a breach of the relevant law. Although this decision was given in a single-judge procedure as to the admissibility of the petition under section 273 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, in fact it dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case and contained detailed reasoning.




  Meanwhile, on 11 November 2005 the applicant applied for the enforcement of the second-instance judgment. Apparently she miscalculated the claimed interests; therefore the debtor’s bank could not comply with the prompt collection order, which was issued by the Budapest Labour Court on an un-specified date. Thus, after clarifying the proper amount, the court issued a new enforcement order on 2 April 2007. The judgment having been complied with by the defendant, the court withdrew the enforcement order on 26 April 2007.

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION




  The applicant complained of unreasonable length of the proceedings and her inability to obtain timely enforcement of the court’s decision in her favour, in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.




  The Government contested that argument. They submitted that the final domestic decision in the case had been made by the Regional Court on 26 August 2005 and that the application had been introduced only on 24 February 2007, i.e. outside the six-month time-limit prescribed in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. The applicant’s petition for review, rejected by the Supreme Court in the admissibility phase, could not be regarded as an effective remedy and did not, in their view, influence the running of the time-limit.




  The Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into account all instances which could have had an influence on the outcome of the case (see Maria de Lurdes Rosa Marques and Others v. Portugal (dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this connection, it finds that the decision of the Supreme Court, issued on 25 October 2006, which dealt with the merits of the applicant’s case and contained a reasoned decision, did have an influence on the outcome of the litigation.




.  Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the execution of a judgment given by any court must be regarded as an integral part of a “hearing” for the purposes of Article 6 (Hornsby v. Greece, 19 March 1997, § 40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II). Since, in the material case, the enforcement proceedings exceeded the period of the review proceedings, the Court considers that the overall duration lasted until the end of enforcement proceedings. The Government’s objection must therefore be rejected.




.  The period to be taken into consideration thus began on 18 December 1999 and ended on 26 April 2007. It thus lasted six years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction, including the execution phase. In view of such lengthy proceedings, 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43,
ECHR 2000-VII). The Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. It therefore 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.




.  The applicant also complained that the length of the proceedings had infringed her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.




.  The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must likewise be declared admissible. However, having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 15 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February 1991, § 23, Series A no. 194-C).




.  The applicant further complained that she had no remedy at her disposal to complain of the delay in the proceedings. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.




.  The Court finds this complaint admissible (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 156, ECHR 2000-XI) and notes that the Government did not submit any proof of the existence of an effective remedy available to the applicant in order to redress the excessive duration either by way of an expedited procedure or by way of compensation. Accordingly, the Court considers that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.




.  Lastly, the applicant complained, relying on Article 6 (1) of the Convention, of unfairness and the outcome of the labour court proceedings. In particular she complained about the expert evidence relied on and the amount awarded to her by the domestic courts.




.  The Court considers that there is nothing in the case file indicating that the domestic courts lacked impartiality, that the applicant could not properly state her case or that the proceedings, devoid of any sign of arbitrariness, were otherwise unfair, in breach of Article 6. 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.




  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed
about 780,000 Hungarian forints (HUF)[3] in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 2,000,000[4] 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 her, on an equitable basis, EUR 1,100, having regard to certain delays attributable to the applicant (see paragraph 9 above).




  The applicant also claimed about HUF 35,000[5] for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant the full sum claimed, i.e. EUR 140.




  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

1.  Declares the complaints concerning Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings) and Article 13 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;

 




  Holds that it is not necessary to examine the applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;

 

5.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 1,100 (one thousand one hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 140 (one hundred and forty 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;

 

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 September 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    Atilla Nalbant                                                                    Peer Lorenzen           Acting Deputy Registrar       President




---

[1] Approximately 740 euros (EUR)

[2] Approximately EUR 820

[3] Approximately EUR 3,300

[4] Approximately EUR 8,000

[5] Approximately EUR 140