[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF CSÁNICS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 40293/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1
March 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Csánics v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
President,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 February 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 40293/06) 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 Sándor Csánics (“the
applicant”), on 20 July 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. 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 1955 and lives in Érd.
- On
27 November 1998 the applicant brought an action against a private
company seeking compensation for injuries he had suffered in an
accident on the premises of a hotel operated by the respondent. The
dispute essentially concerned the amount of compensation payable.
- In
its interlocutory judgment delivered on 7 July 1999, the Budaörs
District Court established the respondent's full liability for the
accident. The review bench of the Supreme Court finally upheld this
decision on 30 April 2002.
- After
obtaining the opinion of a medical expert, the District Court awarded
the applicant compensation in the amount of 102,632 Hungarian forints
(370 euros (EUR)) on 5 November 2003. Being dissatisfied with the
amount awarded, the applicant appealed. Following a remittal, the
Pest County Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court,
significantly raised the amount of compensation on 26 April 2005.
- On
30 January 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition
for review in a reasoned decision. Examining the merits of the case
in detail, it held that the second-instance judgment had not been
unlawful to an extent that had a bearing on the merits of the case.
This decision was served on 3 March 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, arguing in particular that the application was introduced
out of time, the final domestic decision being the one given by the
Pest County Regional Court on 26 April 2005, whereas the application
was introduced only on 20 July 2006,
i.e. more than six months later.
10. The
Court observes that, for the purpose of its examination
of the reasonableness of the length of proceedings, it must take into
account all instances which could have had an influence on the
outcome of the case (see Rosa Marques and Others v. Portugal
(dec.), no. 48187/99, 7 June 2001). In this connection, it finds
that the decision of the Supreme Court, served on the applicant on 3
March 2006, and which dealt with the merits of the applicant's claim
in a reasoned decision, constituted the final domestic decision in
the case (see Béla Szabó v. Hungary, no.
37470/06, § 16, 9 December 2008). The Government's objection
must therefore be rejected. Moreover, the Court considers that the
application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it
is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be
declared admissible.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 27 November 1998
and ended on 30 January 2006. It thus lasted seven years and two
months for three levels of jurisdiction.
- 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
applicant also complained under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome
of the proceedings. In so far as this complaint may be understood to
concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the
proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that,
according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the
observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties
to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with
errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless
and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms
protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the
Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay
down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should
be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by
national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v.
Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I). In the
present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant's submissions
do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality,
or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected,
pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
- Relying
on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed EUR 37,000
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 him EUR 2,400 under this head.
- The
applicant also claimed EUR 1,375 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the domestic courts and 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 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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
2,400 (two 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 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 1 March 2011, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Ireneu
Cabral Barreto
Deputy Registrar President
