European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF BALOGH v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 36630/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

9 February 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 




In the case of Balogh v. Hungary,

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

          Nona Tsotsoria, President,
          Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
          Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,

and Fatos Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 19 January 2016,

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

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 36630/11) against 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 Zsolt Balogh (“the applicant”), on 8 June 2011.

2.  The applicant was represented by Mr Cs. Timár, a lawyer practising in Pécs. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice.

3.  On 4 March 2015 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Pécs. He had been practising as a lawyer.

5.   On 22 January 2006 Mr K. I. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant on charges of abuse of a minor.

6.  As it appears from the case file, the criminal investigation was launched against the applicant around 7 August 2006.

7.  The Public Prosecutor preferred a bill of indictment on 5 March 2007.

8.  As a consequence of the criminal proceedings, on 3 July 2007 the Komárom-Esztergom County Bar Association suspended the applicant’s licence to practise as lawyer.

9.  On 25 September 2008 the Pécs District Court convicted the applicant of abuse of a minor and sentenced him to one year imprisonment with enforcement suspended for two years. The applicant appealed against the judgment.

10.  On 10 February 2010 the Baranya County Regional Court quashed the judgment and ordered the first-instance court to try the case again.

11.  In the ensuing proceedings on 2 July 2010 the Pécs District Court acquitted the applicant due to absence of proof. The applicant appealed against the judgment for acquittal due to lack of an offence.

12.  Finally, in early December 2010 the applicant withdrew his appeal. Arguing that he could have received several mandates from clients if he had had his licence to practise as lawyer, the applicant decided to terminate the criminal proceedings as early as possible in order to resume his practice.

THE LAW

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

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

14.  The Government contested that argument.

15.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 August 2006 and ended on 1 December 2010. It thus lasted four years three months and twenty-four days for two levels of jurisdiction.

16.  In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible.

17.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and 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 (see Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 17, 16 July 2015).

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 17,800,000 Hungarian forints (60,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and 15,000,000 Hungarian forints (EUR 50,000) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

19.  The Government contested the claims.

20.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it awards the applicant, on the basis of equity, EUR 1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

21.  The applicant also claimed 500,000 Hungarian forints (EUR 1,700) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

22.  The Government contested the claim.

23.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.

24.  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 application admissible;

 

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, within three months, the following amounts to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:

(i)  EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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;

 

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 February 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

     Fatoş Aracı                                                                       Nona Tsotsoria
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President