[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF PALLOS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 44726/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
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 Pallos 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 G. Bonello,
Mr I. Cabral
Barreto,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mrs A.
Mularoni,
Mr D. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S.
Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 44726/04) 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 Imre
Pallos (“the applicant”), on 10 November 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
applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Budapest.
- On
19 May 1997 the applicant's ex-partner filed an action against him,
claiming the division of the common ownership of their property.
Between 18 December 1997 and 12 June 2001, the Buda Central District
Court held numerous hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
- On
10 October 2002 the court gave a partial decision, holding that the
plaintiff had a ¼-share in the parties' flat. This decision
was served on the applicant on 27 November 2002.
- On
13 December 2002 the applicant filed an appeal, which was dismissed
on 6 January 2003 by the District Court for being out of time.
- On
28 January 2003 the applicant filed a request for the reinstatement
of the proceedings, which was dismissed on 18 March 2003 by the
Budapest Regional Court for being out of time.
- Subsequently
the applicant lodged a request for the re-opening of the proceedings
in their previously unsuccessful part.
- On
10 September 2003 the District Court suspended the examination of the
remainder of the case pending the outcome of the re-opening
proceedings.
- On
24 February 2004 the request for re-opening was dismissed. On 31
August 2004 the Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal.
- On
10 May 2005 the examination of the remainder of the case was resumed
before the District Court. On the same day, the parties concluded an
in-court agreement, which was approved and declared final
immediately.
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 ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 19 May 1997 and ended
on 10 May 2005. It thus lasted almost eight years. However, in the
Court's view, the time between 10 September 2003 and 10 May 2005,
i.e. a delay of one year and eight months, during which the case was
suspended pending the applicant's futile request for re-opening,
cannot be imputed to the State and must therefore be deducted from
the overall length. Therefore the relevant period is six years and
four months, during which time one court level dealt with the merits
of the applicant's case.
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 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.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained, under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention
and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, about the outcome of the case.
- The
Court observes that the applicant's appeal against the partial
decision of 10 October 2002 was rejected as it had been lodged out of
time. Moreover, as regards the remainder of his action, the Court
notes that the applicant signed an in-court agreement, thus waiving
his further procedural rights. In these circumstances, his complaints
must be rejected either for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or
because he may not claim to be a victim of a violation of the
Convention in this respect, within the meaning of Article 34 of the
Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be
rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 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 5.5 million Hungarian forints
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him
EUR 4,800 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim in this respect.
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 4,800 (four
thousand eight hundred 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 30 October 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Dollé F. Tulkens
Registrar President
