[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF JÁNOS TÓTH v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 6841/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
December 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of János Tóth 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 29 November 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an
application (no. 6841/07) 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, Mr János Tóth (“the
applicant”), on 14 December 2006.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public
Administration and Justice.
- On
8 February 2010 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 1951 and lives in
Budapest.
- In
or about November 1993 the applicant and his wife brought an action
against several respondents before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District
Court, seeking ownership of a real estate and protection against
trespass.
- The
District Court held numerous hearings between 27 June 1994 and
29 June 1995.
- On
5 July 1995 the District Court delivered a partial judgment,
dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for protection against
trespass. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Regional
Court on 13 March 1996.
- On
8 June 1998 the District Court appointed an expert who filed an
opinion on 29 November 1998.
- The
final first-instance judgment was delivered on 14 September
1999. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court decided the case on
20 March 2002.
- The
applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It
quashed the previous judgments and remitted the case to the
first-instance on 25 April 2005.
- In
the resumed proceedings the applicant notified the domestic courts
that one of the respondents had died on 2 November 2002. On
22 February 2006 the Supreme Court thus established that the
review proceedings had been discontinued on this account, and
annulled its previous judgment of 25 April 2005 (see paragraph 10
above). The same day, the Supreme Court remitted the case to the
first-instance.
- Between
16 October 2007 and 12 March 2008 the proceedings were stalled
because the applicant did not cooperate with a court-appointed
expert.
- On
16 May 2008 the case was transferred to the Buda Central District
Court, due to bias of the judges at the Pest Central District Court.
- On
12 December 2008 the latter court delivered a partial judgment. On 13
November 2009 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing on appeal.
It appears from the documents available in the case file that the
case is still pending before the Regional Court.
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 in November 1993 and the
proceedings are still pending before the domestic courts. It thus
lasted some seventeen years and ten months to date before three
levels of jurisdiction. From this time, a period of ten months
between April 2005 and February 2006 must be deducted as the
applicant failed to notify the Supreme Court about the death of one
of the respondents, thus requiring a new review procedure by the
Supreme Court (see paragraph 11 above). Moreover, the five-month
period during which the applicant hindered the proceedings (see
paragraph 12 above) must also be deducted. The relevant duration is
therefore sixteen years and nine months. 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.
18. The
applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings
complained of had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of
his possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above
and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. However, having
regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 14
above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine
whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy, 19 February
1991, § 23, Series A no. 194 C).
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 42,614,153
Hungarian forints
(HUF) in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 73,640,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the
claim. Rejecting the claim for pecuniary damage, the Court considers
that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and
awards him, on an equitable basis, EUR 17,600 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed HUF 4,825,497
for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. 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, who was not represented by a
lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 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 that it is not necessary to examine the
applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;
- 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
17,600 (seventeen thousand six 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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 December 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub
Popović
Deputy Registrar President
