[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF BERGMANN v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 14276/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
March 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 Bergmann v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Rıza
Türmen,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 March 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 14276/04) 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, Ms Andrea
Bergmann (“the applicant”), on 15 May 2001.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
9 October 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 1951 and lives in Pécs.
- On
4 September 1998 the Nagyszokoly Municipality brought an action
against the applicant before the Tamási
District Court, seeking the annulment of a real estate sales
contract. The District Court held several hearings and obtained the
opinion of two experts.
- On
29 May 2000 the court discontinued the proceedings and transferred
the case to the Tolna County Regional
Court, because the increased value of the applicant's counterclaims
brought the dispute within the jurisdiction of that court.
- After
two hearings, on 5 October 2000 the Regional Court found for the
plaintiff. On 2 November 2000 the applicant appealed.
- On
15 October 2002 the Supreme Court's appeal bench upheld the Regional
Court's judgment. This decision was only served on the applicant on
18 July 2003. On 19 November 2003 she submitted a petition for
review.
- On
1 September 2004 the Supreme Court's review bench dismissed as
inadmissible the applicant's petition for review as being
incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant requirements
of the Code of Civil Procedure. It applied section 270(2) of the Code
of Civil Procedure, as in force at the material time, according to
which a review of the substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was
only admissible if it was considered necessary for the harmonisation
or development of the application of the law.
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 fair... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 4 September 1998
and ended on 1 September 2004. It thus lasted almost six years.
However, in the Court's view, the period subsequent to 18 July 2003,
the day on which the second-instance judgment was served on the
applicant, corresponded to the futile review proceedings, devoid of
any prospect of success, and cannot therefore be imputed to the
State. The relevant period is therefore four years, ten months and
two weeks 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 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 –
and in particular to the period of total inactivity of almost two
years before the Supreme Court's appeal bench, as well as the
nine-month delay in the service of the second-instance decision –
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 Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
about the unfairness of the proceedings. The Court considers that
there is nothing in the case file indicating that the courts lacked
impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or
arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and
must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 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 44,000 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 her
EUR 3,000 under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant made no claim under 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 3,000
(three 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 27 March 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
