[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF CSORBA v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 49905/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 December 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Csorba v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović,
President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto
de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise
Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar.
Having
deliberated in private on 15 November 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 49905/06) 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 national, Mr Bálint Csorba (“the applicant”),
on 5 December 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr K. Pencz, a lawyer practising in
Kecskemét. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L.
Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
- On
9 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 allocated to a Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1946 and lives in
Kecskemét.
- In
February 1992 the applicant brought an action against a limited
liability company before the Bács-Kiskun County Regional
Court, requesting the court to order the respondent to pay him fee
for using his real estate.
- The
Regional Court suspended the proceedings on three occasions for
several years, pending the outcome of separate legal disputes related
to the ownership of the real estate. The applicant’s requests
to have the proceedings resumed were dismissed.
- On
22 June 2006 the Regional Court delivered judgment, finding partly
for the applicant. In the absence of appeals, the judgment became
final on 17 July 2006.
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
contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 November 1992,
when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition
took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time
that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of
proceedings at the time. The Court observes that the proceedings had
already lasted about nine months on that date. The period in question
ended on 17 July 2006 when the Regional Court’s judgment became
final. It thus lasted thirteen years and eight months for one level
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 11,200 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 and awards the full sum claimed, i.e. EUR
11,200.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,575 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. This amount should correspond to the legal fees
billable by his lawyer, namely 63 hours of legal work charged at an
hourly rate of EUR 25. The Government did not express an opinion on
the matter. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and
to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the
applicant the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all costs incurred.
- 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, the following amounts, to be converted into
Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
11,200 (eleven thousand two 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 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 December 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
