BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF HORVÁTH AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 45407/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24
November 2009
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 Horváth and Others v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
judges,
and Sally Dollé,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 3 November 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 45407/05) 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 sixteen Hungarian nationals and two Hungarian companies (“the
applicants”), on 12 December 2005.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr P. Kussinszky, a lawyer practising
in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
22 October 2008 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
applicants are sixteen Hungarian nationals and two Hungarian
companies (see list in Annex).
- In
June 1997 the applicants brought an official liability action against
the Budapest IXth District Municipality. The Budapest Regional Court
held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts. It stayed
the procedure for altogether one year and five months pending the
successions of two plaintiffs who had died in the meantime.
- On
5 May 2003 the Regional Court gave judgment. On 18 November 2003
the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the
case.
- In
the resumed proceedings, several hearings took place and the opinion
of an expert was obtained. According to the information in the case
file, the case is still pending before the first-instance court.
THE LAW
- The
applicants 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
Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration has so
far lasted over twelve years and five months. Of this time, one year
and five months corresponding to successions, not imputable to the
State, must be deducted. However, the remaining period still exceeds
eleven years 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 finds 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, each applicant, except for
Mrs Andrásné Schön, claimed twenty thousand
euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Mrs Schön
claimed EUR 40,000. The Government contested these claims. The Court
considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards them each EUR 6,000
under that head, except for Ms Katalin Visontai, Mr Kálmán
Visontai and Dr Kálmán Visontai, to whom it awards EUR
6,000 jointly. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the
proceedings in question are still pending before the domestic courts,
the Court considers that the most appropriate form of redress would
be to bring them to a conclusion as soon as possible, by conducting
them in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention (see Uğuz v. Turkey, no. 31932/03, § 30,
13 December 2007).
- The
applicants also claimed EUR 2,020 for the costs and expenses incurred
before the Court. This amount corresponds to 16 hours of work spent
by their lawyer on the case (4 hours studying documents, 4 hours of
case-law research, 4 hours of client consultations and 4 hours
drafting submissions), billable at an hourly rate of EUR 120, plus
EUR 100 of clerical costs. The Government contested the claim.
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
finds it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 to the applicants,
jointly, for the proceedings before the Court.
- 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, within three months from the date on
which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2
of the Convention, the following amounts:
(i) to
each of the applicants, except for Ms Katalin Visontai, Mr Kálmán
Visontai and Dr Kálmán Visontai, EUR 6,000 (six
thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) to
Ms Katalin Visontai, Mr Kálmán Visontai and Dr Kálmán
Visontai jointly, EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that
may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(iii) to
the applicants jointly, EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros),
plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, in respect of
costs and expenses;
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 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 applicants' claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 2009,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
ANNEX
List
of applicants
Name Domicile
- Horváth
Kálmán Budapest
- Büfé-Land
Bt. Budapest
- Fodor
Tamás Budapest
- Urbán
Károly Budapest
- Homola
és Csang Kft. Budakeszi
- Schön
Andrásné Budapest
- Rózsa
András Budapest
- Mátrai Antal Budapest
- Szász Béla Budapest
- Vagyóczky
Mihályné Budapest
- Kovács
Gábor Budapest
- Kapitány
Karolina Budapest
- Kárpáti
Györgyné Budapest
- Takács
Lászlóné Budapest
- Dávid
Lászlóné Budapest
16. Visontai
Katalin Budapest
17. Visontai
Kálmán Budapest
18. dr. Visontai Kálmán Budapest
