[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF BORODY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 44885/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
November 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 Borody 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 F.
Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 October 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 44885/04) 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 Huba
Borody (“the applicant”), on 7 September 2004.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr Gy. Horváth, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
11 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 Budapest.
- In
a real estate dispute, on 2 January 1996 Mr B. brought an action
against the applicant.
- Between
23 April 1996 and 5 July 2001, the Budapest II/III District Court
held altogether 14 hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert.
- At
the hearing of 9 October 2001 the respondent introduced his
counter-claim, claiming the division of common property. Further
hearings took place on 7 March and 11 June 2002.
- From
4 February 2004 the case was stayed pending the parties' attempt to
reach an agreement.
- Further
hearings were held on 21 June, 28 September and 3 December 2004. On
the latter date the case was again stayed at the parties' request.
- The
parties requested the resumption of the proceedings on 6 June 2005, a
stay on 18 July 2005, and the scheduling of a hearing on 5 January
2006. However, since they did not appear at the hearing on 9 March
2006, the case was again stayed. After the expiry of the statutory
six-month time-limit, the case ceased to exist on 9 September 2006.
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 2 January 1996 and
ended on 9 September 2006. It thus lasted over ten years and eight
months. However, in the Court's view, the periods 4 February to 21
June 2004 and 3 December 2004 to 9 September 2006, which related to
the staying of the procedure at the parties' request, cannot be
imputed to the State. The corresponding time of altogether two years,
one month and 22 days must therefore be deducted from the overall
length. The relevant period is thus eight years, six months and 18
days for one level of jurisdiction.
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 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. 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 11,000 euros (EUR) 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 8,000.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim under that 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 applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 8,000
(eight 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 20 November 2007,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
F. Elens-Passos F.
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
