[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF SEFCSUK v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 37501/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9
December 2008
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 Sefcsuk v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 37501/06) 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 and Mrs Károly Sefcsuk (“the
applicants”), on 25 June 2006.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
25 February 2008 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article
29 § 3).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1943 and 1944 respectively and live in
Budapest.
- On
3 August 1992 the applicants brought an action challenging an
administrative decision expropriating their land. After two hearings,
on 10 May 1993 the case was suspended pending an underlying
dispute concerning the situation in the land register.
- On
29 August 2002 the case was transferred to the Pest County Regional
Court as this was the competent court to deal with the case.
- The
proceedings concerning the land register were terminated by the Érd
District Land Registry on 26 March 2004. The applicants did not
appeal to the Pest County Land Registry.
- After
two further hearings, on 15 February 2005 the Regional Court
dismissed the applicants' action. The court held that the authorities
involved in the expropriation had proceeded in compliance with the
law.
- On
2 November 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal dismissed the
applicants' appeal. This decision was served on their lawyer on
27 December 2005.
- On
16 May 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicants' petition for
review as inadmissible, since it did not meet the procedural
requirements.
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 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 that stage. The Court notes in that connection that
the case had already been pending for three months by then.
- The
period in question ended on 16 May 2006. It thus lasted over thirteen
years and six months. However, for the Court, the period slightly in
excess of six months which corresponded to the applicants' futile
petition for review cannot be imputed to the State and must be
deducted from the overall length. The relevant duration is therefore
thirteen years for two levels 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 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 circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject,
the Court concludes 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
applicants also complained under Article 13 of the Convention and
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the proceedings
concerning the land register which ended in 2004.
- The
Court observes that the applicants did not appeal against the
District Land Registry's 2004 decision (see paragraph 7 above). This
complaint is therefore inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1
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
- Jointly,
the applicants claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
damage and EUR 11,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- 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 applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage and 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 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 applicants, jointly, within three
months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in
accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 11,000 (eleven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into
Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(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 applicants' claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
