[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF VÁRALJAI v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 31172/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
June 2010
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 Váraljai v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 May 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 31172/07) 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, Mrs Jánosné
Váraljai (“the applicant”), on 31 May 2007.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
9 February 2010 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
applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Albertirsa.
- An
inheritance action was filed against the applicant on 30 November
1999. On 16 April 2002 the Cegléd District Court found for the
plaintiffs. This decision was quashed by the Pest County Regional
Court 10 December 2002. The District Court gave a new judgment on 1
March 2005. On
19 December 2006 the Regional Court decided on the
parties' appeals. This decision was served on 13 March 2007.
THE LAW
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government did not contest
that argument.
- The
Court observes that the period to be taken in to consideration lasted
over seven years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction. In
view of such lengthy proceedings, the application 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.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed altogether 3.3
million Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest in respect of
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the
claim. The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this part of the claim. However, it considers that the
applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an
equitable basis, it awards her
EUR 4,800 under that head.
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 926,150 for the costs and expenses
incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government did
not express an opinion on the matter. According to the Court's
case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and
expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been
actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum.
In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its
possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable
to award the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, the sum
of EUR 500 under this head.
- 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 application admissible;
- 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, the following
amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
500 (five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the
applicant, 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 applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 June 2010, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
