[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF PEÁK v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 20280/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 July
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 Peák 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,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Işıl
Karakaş,
judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 10 June 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20280/04) 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 István Peák on 6 April
2004.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
3 September 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 applications at the same time.
THE FACTS
- The
applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Balatonakarattya.
1.
The proceedings concerning the applicant's patent rights
- On
26 October 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest
Regional Court against the Military Engineering Institute and six
individuals. He sought to have it established that the defendants had
violated his patent rights in that they had utilised without licence
one of his inventions when creating a military defence tool for
armoured vehicles. The applicant was represented by his patent agent.
- On
17 April 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's claim. In
May 1997, the applicant had his patent cancelled, being of the view
that it followed from the decision of the Regional Court that it
could only be reviewed if he first abandoned his patent protecting
the invention. Subsequently, he appealed against the Regional Court's
decision, maintaining that the defendants had used his invention
without licence.
- On
6 January 1999 the appellate bench of the Supreme Court quashed the
first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court.
- In
the resumed proceedings the defendants filed a preparatory paper with
the Regional Court on 9 November 1999.
- On
7 April 2000 the Regional Court, establishing that the defendants'
invention had been based on a different technical solution than that
of the applicant and, that, therefore, the former had not illegally
used the latter's invention, again dismissed the action. The
applicant appealed.
- In
2003 the appellate bench of the Supreme Court appointed a technical
expert, the Expert Committee of the Hungarian Patent Office, which
submitted its opinion to the court on 2 February 2004. On 8 March
2004 the applicant submitted a counter-opinion prepared by other
experts.
- The
appellate bench of the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance
decision on 31 March 2004. The courts relied on documentary evidence,
the opinion of the technical expert and the parties' testimony. The
applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
- On
15 October 2004 the review bench of the Supreme Court declared the
applicant's petition inadmissible, without examining the merits,
since it was incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- In
April 2004 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the
Budapest Prosecutor's Office, alleging that the documents submitted
by the defendants during the proceedings had been forged. On 18 April
2005, after a remittal, the Prosecutor's Office terminated the
investigation in the absence of any crime, which decision was upheld
by the Chief Prosecutor's Office in June 2005.
2.
Civil proceedings against the Budapest Regional Court
- In
2004 the applicant brought an official liability action against the
Budapest Regional Court before the Pest County Regional Court,
alleging that the Budapest Regional Court's wrong decision had forced
him to abandon his patent rights in 1997.
- On
10 October 2005 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the
applicant's claim. It found that the applicant had erred in accepting
a non-final decision ─ against which he appealed ─ as a
binding legal opinion and, therefore, the Budapest Regional Court was
not responsible for his alleged loss. The applicant appealed.
- On
13 April 2006 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance
decision. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme
Court. On 9 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's
petition. The courts relied on documentary evidence and the parties'
testimony.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE
6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings concerning
the patent rights (see paragraphs 5-13 above) had been incompatible
with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in
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 26 October 1995 and
ended on 15 October 2004, i.e. it lasted for nine years. From the
period taken into consideration, 6 months ─ the length of the
review proceedings before the Supreme Court ─ are imputable to
the applicant, since this futile motion initiated by him was declared
inadmissible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of
the Code of Civil Procedure and not examined on the merits. The
relevant period thus lasted 8 years and 6 months for two levels of
jurisdiction, including a remittal.
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 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
Court observes that the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention about the outcome and the unfairness of both
proceedings. The Court notes that these complaints are essentially of
a fourth-instance nature: there is no indication in the case file
that the domestic 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.
- The
Court further observes that the applicant complained under Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the violation of his
property rights. In this connection he also relied on Article 13 of
the Convention, without substantiating or developing further this
complaint. The Court considers that the mere refusal of the
applicant's claims in judicial proceedings which disclose no sign of
arbitrariness does not raise an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 to the Convention or Article 13 of the Convention. 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.
- Lastly,
the Court notes that the applicant complained, without relying on any
particular provisions of the Convention, that his criminal
accusations did not lead to any conviction. The Court observes that
the Convention or its Protocols do not guarantee any right as such to
press criminal charges against third persons or have them convicted.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as
being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the
Convention, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4.
- It
follows that these remaining complaints must be declared inadmissible
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 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 35.8 billion Hungarian forints in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
- The
Court does not discern any casual link between the violation found
and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim.
However, on the equitable basis, it awards the applicant EUR 5,600
for the non-pecuniary damages.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not put forward any 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 concerning the patent rights 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
according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
EUR 5,600 (five thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, which sum is 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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 1 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise
Tulkens
Registrar President
