European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF AGROLA TRADE KFT. v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 8034/07)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

8 October 2013

 

 

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




In the case of Agrola Trade Kft. 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 17 September 2013,

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

PROCEDURE




  The case originated in an application (no. 8034/07) 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 limited liability company, Agrola Trade Kft. (“the applicant”), on 7 February 2007.




  The applicant was represented by Mr J. Paraizs, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.




  On 8 February 2010 the application was communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).

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 is a limited liability company with it seat in Budapest.




  On 21 December 1995 the applicant’s predecessor obtained a retroactive building permit from the second-instance building control authority. On 10 February 1996 the neighbours brought an action seeking the judicial review of the administrative decision before the Pest Central District Court.




  After six hearings the case was transferred to the Budapest Regional Court.




  On 10 October 2000 the proceedings were interrupted due to the death of the fourth plaintiff.




  On 21 March 2001 the applicant company requested permission to enter the proceedings as an intervener (beavatkozó) on the respondent’s side.




  After the parties had resolved the question of succession of the deceased party, on 9 December 2003 the proceedings were resumed, and the applicant joined the case as intervener. On the same day the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment.




  On 2 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a second-instance court, quashed the judgment, and remitted the case to the first instance.




  On 1 December 2005 and 22 November 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings.




  On 16 April 2008 a final judgment was adopted in the case.

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 to be taken into consideration in respect of the applicant began on 21 March 2001 when the applicant applied to be an intervener in the case (see paragraph 8 above). It ended on 16 April 2008. It thus lasted about seven years and one month 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, 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 further complained that there was no relevant remedy available to accelerate the proceedings or obtain redress for their protraction. It relied on Article 13 of the Convention.




  The Government argued that, after 1 April 2006, the applicant could have made an objection (kifogás) to accelerate the case. In the applicant’s view, this is not an effective remedy.




  The Court considers that this complaint is likewise admissible.




  It further considers that it is not necessary to examine in the present case the effectiveness, as such, of the remedy suggested by the Government, because on 1 April 2006 the proceedings had already been pending for five years. In the Court’s view, even assuming that the case could have been accelerated subsequent to this date by virtue of an objection, this could not have possibly remedied the substantial delay already sustained. Furthermore, the Court notes that it has not been argued at all that an objection could have resulted in pecuniary compensation for the applicant in order to redress the grievance caused by the protraction of the litigation (compare and contrast Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 98, 3 May 2007).




  In these circumstances, the Court finds that there has been no adequate remedy available to the applicant in respect of the overall length of the present case in respect of its complaint about the length of the proceedings.

There has been therefore a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.




  Finally, the applicant claimed that the length of the proceedings had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.




  In so far as this complaint has not been consumed by the one concerning the length of the proceedings, the Court considers that there is no appearance in the case file that there was any interference by the State with the applicant’s property rights on account of the litigation in question. The subject matter of the case was a dispute between private parties, without any indication of arbitrary deprivation of property. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.




  Relying on Article 41of the Convention, the applicant claimed 11 million Hungarian forints[1] in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined. 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 applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant EUR 4,800 under that head.




  The applicant made no costs claim.




  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 complaints concerning the excessive length of the proceedings and the absence of a remedy 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 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

 

4.  Holds,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros), to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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;

 

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

    Atilla Nalbant                                                                    Peer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar                                                            President

 




---

[1] 37,000 euros (EUR)