[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF BARNA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 40431/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
23
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 Barna 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 M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr V.
Zagrebelsky,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mr D. Popović,
judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 2 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 40431/04) 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 two Hungarian nationals, Mr Péter Barna and Ms Zsuzsanna
Barna (“the applicants”), on 28 September 2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
23 November 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 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants, father and daughter, were born in 1929 and 1957
respectively and live in Budapest.
- On
11 May 1995 the applicants filed an action for the invalidation of a
contract in the context of a real-estate dispute.
- The
Budapest II/III District Court held numerous hearings and obtained
the opinions of four experts. The applicants' action was gradually
extended to include altogether 28 respondents, three of whom died in
the meantime. Pending the identification of their successors, the
proceedings had to be interrupted on three occasions, for
respectively 7, 12 and 5 months.
- On
25 January 2002 the District Court gave judgment and invalidated the
disputed contract, but dismissed the remainder of the action.
- After
several hearings, on 19 October 2004 the Budapest Regional Court
amended the first-instance decision in a final judgment.
- The
District Court rectified and completed the decision of 25 January
2002 on 12 September 2005.
- Because
one of the plaintiffs did not comply with the final decision,
enforcement proceedings commenced before the Budaörs District
Court in 2005. This procedure was interrupted on 6 September 2005,
since the enforced relocation of a fence would have cut off the
debtor from her source of water. The District Court informed the
applicants that they should seek a court injunction obliging the
debtor to remove her water pipe. The applicants did so on 19 February
2006.
- After
three hearings, on 19 April 2007 the Budaörs District Court
found for the applicants. The debtor appealed to the Pest County
Regional Court. According to the information provided by the parties
and the elements available in the case file to date, the case has not
yet ended.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants 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 ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 11 May 1995 and has
not yet ended. It has thus lasted over 12 years and 4 months for two
levels of jurisdiction at the date of adoption of the present
judgment.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicants 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 application. 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,
even if the periods necessary to identify the successors of the
deceased respondents cannot be imputed to the State.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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
applicants jointly claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers, on an equitable basis, that it should award the full
sum claimed.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants made no claim 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 application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 20,000 (twenty 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 23 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
