[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF JÁNOS LAKATOS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 35701/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11
January 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of János Lakatos 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 7 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 35701/05) 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 János Lakatos (“the applicant”),
on 26 September 2005.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice.
- On
22 June 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 1931 and lives in Miske.
- On
2 August 1992 two plaintiffs brought an action in trespass against
the applicant before the Kalocsa District Court. After several
hearings, a judgment was given on 8 September 1994. On 28 February
1995 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court quashed this
decision and remitted the case.
- In
the resumed proceedings several hearings took place. On 18 December
1998 the District Court delivered a partial judgment. On appeal, on
24 August 1999 the Regional Court suspended the proceedings pending
the adjudication of those claims which were unaffected by the partial
judgment.
- On
10 January 2000 the District Court held a hearing. On 2 May 2000 it
suspended the proceedings pending the termination, on 7 February
2002, of a related land registry dispute.
- Upon
the resumption of the case on 11 December 2002 another hearing was
held and an expert appointed. The expert opinion was submitted on 16
June 2003. Between 8 July 2003 and 14 March 2004 the proceedings were
again suspended pending the termination of related administrative
proceedings.
- On
5 July 2004 the District Court adopted a partial judgment concerning
damages. On appeal, on 6 January 2005 the Regional Court partly
upheld the first instance decision while remitting some claims.
- On
13 September 2005 the first instance proceedings continued. Another
expert was appointed who filed his opinion on 12 October 2005. On 17
November 2005 and 7 February 2006 further hearings took place.
- On
15 February 2006 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for
the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 22 November 2006 the Regional Court
heard the parties and appointed an expert who filed his opinion on
5 January 2007.
- On
20 November 2007 the Regional Court gave judgment. On 24 June
2009 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
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 three months on that date. The period in question
ended on 24 June 2009. It thus lasted almost sixteen years and eight
months for three 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 16,000 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
16,000.
- 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 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,
EUR 16,000 (sixteen 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President
