[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> BÖRZSÖNYI v. HUNGARY - 48150/11 - Committee Judgment [2013] ECHR 1016 (22 October 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/1016.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 1016

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 

 

 

SECOND SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF BÖRZSÖNYI v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 48150/11)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 




October 2013

 

 

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Börzsönyi v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
András Sajó,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE




  The case originated in an application (no. 48150/11) 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 Péter Börzsönyi (“the applicant”), on 24 July 2011.




  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.




  On 5 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE




  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Budapest.




  From 1 April 1999 until 30 June 2004 the applicant was employed as a civil servant. On 17 June 2005 he brought an action against his former employer before the Pest County Labour Court, challenging his previous civil service grade and claiming payment for outstanding salary, allowance in lieu of untaken leave and compensation for non-pecuniary damage.




  On 8 July 2008 the court ordered the respondent to pay 1,863,322 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 6,400 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests for outstanding salaries, reward and allowance in lieu of untaken holidays.




  By its decision of 30 October 2009 the Pest County Regional Court decreased the amount to HUF 1,618,883 (approximately EUR 5,500) and accrued interests. The applicant submitted a petition for review against this decision.




 On 2 February 2011 the Supreme Court increased the amount payable to the applicant to HUF 1,982,813 (approximately EUR 6,800) and accrued interests. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 March 2011.

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 on 17 June 2005 and ended on 3 March 2011. It thus lasted five years and eight months for three 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 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, especially in view of what was at stake for the applicant. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.




  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed EUR 6,800 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim.

The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR 1,000.




  The applicant made no costs claim.




  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate 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,

1.  Declares the application admissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

 

3.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,000 (one 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;

 

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Seçkin Erel Peer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President