[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF FÜRY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 38042/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
27
July 2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Füry v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 38042/06) 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 a Hungarian and a French national, Mr and Mrs Lajos Füry
(“the applicants”), on 12 July 2006.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
- On
19 November 2009 the
President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14,
the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was
also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the
application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1940 and 1942 respectively and live in
Budapest.
A. Administrative litigation
- In
a real estate dispute, on 11 October 1995 the applicants brought an
action against the Budapest Administrative Office. The Pest Central
District Court dismissed their action on 6 May 1997. On 26 February
1998 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed their appeal.
B. Criminal proceedings
- In
the context of the above dispute, on 14 May 1996 and 4 July 1997,
respectively, the applicants filed criminal reports against various
individuals on charges of fraud and other offences. Their complaints
against the non-pursuit of these proceedings were finally dismissed
on 31 March 1999.
C. Actions for judicial constitution of a contract and
deletion of a land register entry
- On
26 May 1997 the applicants filed an action with the Buda Central
District Court for judicial constitution of a contract of sale of a
property. On 16 December 1997 they requested the suspension of the
proceedings pending another action of theirs, introduced on 3 October
1997, in which they sought deletion of a related land register entry.
On 6 January 1998 the District Court decided to suspend the
proceedings since the issues to be determined in the other case were
found to be preliminary ones.
- In
the case concerning the land register entry, on 7 April 1998 the
applicants modified their action; therefore, the action had to be
extended to include further respondents. However, the applicants did
so only on 21 April 1999. After several hearings, the
proceedings had to be interrupted between 5 June 2000 and 19 April
2001, pending the succession of a deceased respondent. On 21 March
2002 the District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest
Regional Court held several hearings and on 15 January 2004 upheld
the first-instance decision in a final judgment. The applicants filed
a petition for review. On 23 May 2005 the Supreme Court's review
bench refused to deal with the merits of the petition holding that
the conditions thereof were not met. A further so-called appeal, not
recognised under the law, was dismissed on 1 March 2006.
- Subsequently
the applicants notified the District Court of the termination of the
case concerning the land register issue, and the one concerning the
constitution of a contract was resumed. Several hearings took place
between 10 January 2007 and 18 April 2008. On 28 August 2008 the
District Court dismissed the action. On appeal, the Budapest Regional
Court held hearings on 28 May and 24 September 2009 and delivered a
judgment on 1 October 2009, overruling the first-instance judgment in
favour of the applicants and constituting the contract as requested.
On 27 November 2009 the respondent filed a petition for review.
The case is still pending before the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings in chapter C
above was incompatible with the “reasonable time”
requirement of Article 6 § 1. The Government contested that
argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 26 May 1997 and has
not yet ended. It has thus lasted over thirteen years so far.
However, the Court observes that the applicants caused a one-year
delay between 7 April 1998 and 21 April 1999 by extending their
action to include the required respondents only belatedly. It further
notes that the main case had to be interrupted between 5 June 2000
and 19 April 2001, pending the succession of a deceased respondent.
This delay of some ten months cannot be imputed to the State. Lastly,
the nine-month period between 23 May 2005 and 1 March 2006
corresponding to the applicants' so-called appeal against the
rejection of their petition for review, which was not recognised
under the law and thus futile, must be attributed to them (see
paragraph 8 above). After the deduction of these periods, the
relevant length is still over ten years and five months for three
levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this
complaint must be declared admissible.
- 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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v.
France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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 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.
- The
applicants also claimed that the length of the proceedings in
question amounted to a breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to that under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention which has already been examined above and must
therefore, likewise, be declared admissible. However, having regard
to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (paragraph 12 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately
whether there has also been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, judgment of 19 February 1991,
Series A no. 194-C, p. 47, § 23).
- The
applicants also complained under Article 6 about the outcome of the
proceedings outline in chapters A and B and, under Article 13, about
the Supreme Court's decision of 23 May 2005 in chapter C (see
paragraphs 5, 6 and 8 above). However, these cases were terminated on
26 February 1998, 31 March 1999 and 23 May 2005, respectively,
that is, more than six months before the date of introduction of the
application. The applicants' so-called appeal against the Supreme
Court's decision, not recognised under the law, was no effective
remedy in the circumstances and did not influence the running of the
six-month time-limit. Lastly, the applicants submitted that the court
decisions adopted so far in the case concerning the constitution of a
contract amounted to a breach of their rights under Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1. The Court notes that this case is still pending
before the Supreme Court, a circumstance rendering this complaint
premature. In any event, it is satisfied that the lower courts
adjudicated a civil-law dispute between private parties in
proceedings devoid of any appearance of arbitrariness. It follows
that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded. The
Court therefore considers that these complaints must be rejected,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41, the applicants claimed, jointly, 13,000 euros (EUR) in
respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim.
The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them,
jointly, EUR 6,400 under that head. Furthermore, having regard to the
fact that the proceedings in question are still pending before the
domestic courts, the Court considers that the most appropriate form
of redress would be to bring them to a conclusion as soon as
possible, by conducting them in accordance with the requirements of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Uğuz v. Turkey,
no. 31932/03, § 30, 13 December 2007).
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 2,250 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. This amount corresponds to 18 hours billable by
their lawyer at an hourly rate of EUR 125. The Government contested
the claim. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and in
the light of its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award
the sum of
EUR 1,000.
- 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 complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings in chapter C of The Facts and the peaceful
enjoyment of the applicants' possessions admissible and the remainder
of the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length of the case
outlined in chapter C;
- Holds that it is not necessary to examine the
applicants' complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicants, jointly, within three
months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints
at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
6,400 (six thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to
the applicants, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 27 July 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
