SECOND SECTION

CASE OF SÁRKÖZI v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 40354/04)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 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 Sárközi v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
	Mrs	 President,
	Mr	
	Mr	
	Mr	
	Mrs	
	Mrs	
	Mr	 judges,
and Mrs  , Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 November 2007,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in  against  lodged with the  of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by .
2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
3.  On  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
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 5 April 1988 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and her alleged accomplices. On 20 August 1990 the Budapest Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment charging them with larceny. Subsequently, the Pest Central District Court held five hearings.
6.  Between 15 March 1993 and 30 September 1994 the applicant was not available for trial. Subsequently the District Court held seven hearings. In the period between 26 August 1998 and 13 August 1999, the applicant was again unavailable for trial.
7.  From 5 May 2000 until 5 March 2003, the Pest Central District Court held seven hearings.
8.  On 21 May 2003 the court ordered the applicant's examination by an expert psychiatrist. Since the applicant did not comply voluntarily, it could not take place before 21 November 2003.
9.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant was acquitted.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10.  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 ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
11.  The Government contested that argument.
12.  The period to be taken into consideration only began on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court notes that the proceedings had already been pending for four years and seven months by that date.
13.  The period in question ended on 31 March 2004. It thus lasted over eleven years and four months. However, the Court considers that the periods from 15 March 1993 to 30 September 1994, 26 August 1998 to 13 August 1999, and 21 May to 21 November 2003, during which time the applicant was unavailable, cannot be imputed to the State. Thus the corresponding delay of some three years must be deducted from the overall length. The relevant period is therefore eight years and four months for one level of jurisdiction.
A.  Admissibility
14.  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
15.  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, and the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
16.  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 Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
17.  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 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.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18.  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
19.  The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
20.  The Government contested this amount.
21.  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 her EUR 8,000 under that head.
B.  Costs and expenses
22.  The applicant also claimed EUR 3,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
23.  The Government contested the claim.
24.  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
25.  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
1.  Declares the application admissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 November 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	S. 	F.  
	Registrar	President