SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MÁTYUS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 33654/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 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 Mátyus v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
and SallyDolléSection Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2008,
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. It 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
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 7 February 1994 civil proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The plaintiff made various claims for movable and immovable assets.
6.  Between 3 March 1997 and 2 November 1998 the case was suspended pending the termination of another procedure ongoing between the plaintiff and a third party.
7.  On 6 January 2005 the Pest Central District Court found for the applicant, after having held numerous hearings.
8.  On 17 November 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (service: 29 December 2005).
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9.  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...”
10.  The Government contested that argument.
11.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 February 1994 and ended on 29 December 2005. It thus lasted over eleven years and ten months. However, in the Court's view, the suspension of the case cannot be regarded as having been unreasonable in the circumstances and, therefore, its duration – one year and eight months – must be deducted from the overall length. The relevant period is therefore over ten years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A.  Admissibility
12.  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
13.  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).
14.  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).
15.  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
16.  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
17.  The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
18.  The Government contested the claim.
19.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him 
EUR 8,000 under that head.
B.  Costs and expenses
20.  The applicant made no costs claim.
C.  Default interest
21.  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), 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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2008, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens
	Registrar	President