[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF GOTTHÁRD-GÁZ KFT v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 28323/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5
June 2007
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 Gotthárd-Gáz Kft v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mrs F. Tulkens, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mrs A.
Mularoni,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović,
judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 15 May 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 28323/04) 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, Gotthárd-Gáz Kft (“the applicant”),
on 24 June 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by its managing director, Mr G. Bor. The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law
Enforcement.
- On
8 March 2006 the Court
decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant company was founded in 1991 with the aim of constructing a
gas supply network for the town of Szentgotthárd.
- On
27 January 1993 the Veszprém District Mining Authority issued
a permit for another company, authorising it to construct principal
gas pipe sections in two streets in Szentgotthárd. On 8
February 1993 the applicant filed an administrative appeal. On 12
March 1993 the National Mining Authority dismissed the appeal,
holding that the applicant had no locus standi. The applicant
sought judicial review on 5 April 1993.
- After
two hearings, on 20 September 1993 the Veszprém District Court
quashed the administrative decisions.
- On
appeal, on 7 February 1994 the Veszprém County Regional Court
quashed this decision and dismissed the applicant's action. It held
that the plaintiff had no locus standi in the case, because it
could not prove that – in accordance with section 327(1) of the
Code of Civil Procedure – the subject matter concerned its
rights or lawful interests. Nor could the applicant company (which
itself had not been a party to the administrative proceedings) prove
– as required by section 72(1) of the Code of Administrative
Procedure – that it had suffered prejudice to its lawful
interests.
- On
28 March 1994 the applicant filed a petition for review. The Supreme
Court held hearings on 20 and 27 November 1995. On the latter
occasion, the applicant declared that another administrative
litigation concerning its licence to supply gas was in progress. The
Supreme Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the
other case.
- After
the second-instance court on 25 September 2003 had finally dismissed
the applicant's action concerning the licence, the Supreme Court
resumed the proceedings. On 8 January 2004 it upheld the Regional
Court's decision. It endorsed the reasoning of the second-instance
decision, and refuted the applicant's allegation that it had been
deprived of its locus standi without an examination of the
merits of the case. In the court's view, the fact that, after having
deduced in a detailed analysis that the applicant company had no
locus standi in the case, the Regional Court had not embarked
on an examination of the underlying administrative dispute did not
amount to a denial of justice.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 5 April 1993 and ended
on 8 January 2004. It thus lasted over ten years and nine months for
three levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- 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, cited above).
- 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
instant application. It notes that the protraction of the case
occurred on account of two interlinked procedures; however, having
regard to its case-law on the subject, it considers that the length
of the proceedings was in any event excessive and failed to meet the
“reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about
the alleged unfairness of the proceedings and, under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, about their outcome.
- The
Court considers that the applicant's complaint about the unfairness
of the proceedings falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of
the Convention, the latter being the lex specialis in this
field. However, 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
domestic law and the national courts (García Ruiz v. Spain
[GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I).
- In
the present case, the Court does not discern any indication that the
courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise
unfair. Moreover, the fact that the domestic courts found against the
applicant, in litigation challenging an administrative decision
conferring rights on another business entity, cannot be regarded as
an interference with its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its
possessions, for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No 1. It
follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to
Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 8,090,400 Hungarian forints (HUF)
plus accrued interest in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 5
million
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. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the
applicant EUR 6,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 2.5 million
for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and
the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to 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 information in
its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it
reasonable to award the applicant company, which was not represented
by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 400 under this head.
C. Default interest
- 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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, EUR 6,000 (six
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 400 (four
hundred euros) in respect of costs and expenses, to be converted into
the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable
at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 5 June 2007, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
