[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF CZMARKÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 26242/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
October 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 Czmarkó 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,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni, judges,
and
Mrs F. Elens-passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 September 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 26242/04) 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 national, Mr Gyula Czmarkó.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
30 January 2007 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Vác.
- The
facts of the case as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
A. Labour dispute
- On
17 July 1997 the applicant's employment with the Vác Health
Care School was terminated. He challenged the school's decision
before the Budapest Labour Court. On 7 February 2001 the Labour Court
dismissed his action. The applicant appealed.
- On
14 September 2001 the Budapest Regional Court upheld the
first-instance decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review
with the Supreme Court. On 29 January 2003 the review bench of the
Supreme Court finally dismissed his action. The applicant requested
its re-opening, but to no avail.
B. Civil proceedings against a Belarus official
- In
December 1999 the applicant, transporting medical equipment in his
lorry, was halted at the Belarus border. While he was completing the
necessary documents, the contents of his lorry were robbed.
Purportedly in order to clarify the events, the Belarus authorities
took the applicant into custody for approximately two weeks, after
which he was allowed to return to Hungary.
- On
23 September 2001 the applicant initiated a civil action in the Vác
District Court against a Belarus official who had participated in the
above events.
- On
6 February 2003 the District Court informed the applicant that his
case had been registered as a claim for compensation. In view of the
fact that the case file had meanwhile been lost, it requested him to
reproduce certain documents.
- On
4 April 2003 the applicant again submitted his action.
- On
20 April 2003 the District Court ordered the applicant to state his
financial situation with a view to determining his request for legal
aid. On 20 May 2003 the applicant submitted the necessary documents.
- The
case is still pending before the District Court.
C. Civil proceedings against an airline
- In
1993 the applicant's luggage was lost during his flight to Canada.
The applicant unsuccessfully requested the airline to compensate him.
- On
23 September 2001 the applicant brought an action in compensation
against the company. On 6 February 2003 the Vác District Court
informed the applicant that that case file had been lost and
requested him to reproduce certain documents.
- The
case is apparently is still pending before the District Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings described at
chapters “B” and “C” above (paragraphs 8-16)
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 ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- As
regards these proceedings, the period to be taken into consideration
began on 23 September 2001. According to the information provided by
the parties and the elements available in the case file to date, it
has not yet ended. Thus the proceedings have so far lasted six years
for one level 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
present case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings
described in chapter “C” above (paragraphs 14-16) had
infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as
guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to that under Article 6 §
1 of the Convention which has already been examined above and must
therefore, likewise, be declared admissible.
- However,
having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (paragraph 23
above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine
separately whether there has also been a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19
February 1991, Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
Court observes that the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the outcome, the unfairness and the length of
the proceedings described under chapter “A” above
(paragraphs 6-7). The Court observes
that the final decision in this case was given by the review bench of
the Supreme Court on 29 January 2003. However, the
application was only introduced on 1 May 2004, i.e. more than six
months later (cf. Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention).
- The
Court further observes that the applicant
complained under Article 13 in the connection of the proceedings
described in chapters “B” and “C”. However,
he only complained that the length of the proceedings infringed his
right to an effective remedy rather than about the absence of a
remedy to speed up the proceedings. Since he did not rely on any
substantive Article of the Convention to be examined in conjunction
with the Article 13 complaint, this aspect of the case is
incompatible ratione
materiae, with the
provisions of the Convention (cf. Article 35 §§
3 and 4).
29. Moreover,
the Court notes that, relying on Articles 5 and 6 of
the Convention, the applicant complained that his arrest in Belarus
was unlawful. In this connection he also relied on Article 14 of the
Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, without
substantiating or developing these complaints. The Court notes that
the Republic of Belarus is not a Contracting Party to the Convention;
therefore, these complaints are incompatible ratione personae
with the provisions of the Convention (cf. Article 35
§§ 3 and 4).
- It
follows that these remaining complaints must be declared inadmissible
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. 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 22,082 US dollars
in respect of pecuniary and 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, on an equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 7,000 for
non-pecuniary damages.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and for those incurred before the Court.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- According
to the Court's case-law, an applicant is entitled to the
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. The Court notes that the applicant's costs
claim has not been substantiated by any relevant documents and must
therefore be rejected.
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 complaints under chapters “B”
and “C” concerning the excessive length of the
proceedings and the complaint under chapter “C”
concerning the alleged infringement of property rights admissible and
the remainder of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that there is no need to examine
separately the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to 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 7,000
(seven thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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 amount 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 9 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
F. Elens-passos F. Tulkens Deputy Registrar President
