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 £1, 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 GYŐZŐ NAGY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 38891/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
March 2010
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 Győző Nagy v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 March 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 38891/06) 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 Győző
Nagy (“the applicant”), on 21 August 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr L. Holzmann, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
18 June 2009 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
applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.
- On
12 November 1998 the applicant was charged with fraud and forging
documents. On 28 April 2000 the Miskolc District Court found him
guilty. On appeal, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County
Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the
first-instance court on 5 June 2001.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the District Court acquitted the applicant
on 11 December 2002. This judgment was quashed by the Regional Court
on 3 June 2004.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the District Court found the applicant
guilty on 13 July 2005. On appeal, the Regional Court reversed this
judgment and finally acquitted the applicant on 16 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.
- The
Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration
lasted seven years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction. In
view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint 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, Pélissier
and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
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 1,320,000
euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, on account of lost
income, and EUR 15,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage. The
Government contested these claims. The Court does not discern any
causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage
alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it considers that
the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and
awards him EUR 4,800 under that head.
- The
applicant also claimed altogether EUR 9,720 for the costs and
expenses incurred before the domestic courts and those incurred
before the Court. In the latter respect, he also submitted an
agreement concluded with his lawyer, according to which he would pay
20% of any amount awarded by the Court to his lawyer for the costs of
his representation in the proceedings before the Court. The
Government contested these claims.
- 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
considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 covering costs
under all heads.
- 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
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following
amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
4,800 (four thousand eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
1,500 (one thousand 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 March 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President
