SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
GUEST ZRT v. HUNGARY
(Application no.
36999/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 June 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Guest Zrt 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 Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an
application (no. 36999/08) 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 privately held company limited by shares, Guest Zrt.
(“the applicant”), on 28 July 2008.
The applicant was
represented by Mr P. Czugler, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent,
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
On 13 April 2011 the application was communicated
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 is a privately held company limited
by shares with its seat in Budapest.
In the context of a real estate dispute, on 10
September 1993 the applicant brought an action before the Pest Central District
Court. The litigation concerned in essence the allegedly unlawful use of
business premises by another company and the resultant damages.
A first-instance partial judgment was quashed on
appeal in October 1998. In the resumed proceedings the District Court gave
interim judgment in April 1999, upheld on appeal in June 2000.
Other aspects of the case were adjudicated by the
District Court in February 2001. This decision was upheld on appeal in October
2001 and by the Supreme Court on 15 January 2004.
As regards the remainder of the claims, the
District Court found for the respondents on 15 December 2005. On 27 February
2007 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this judgment. Relying essentially on
documentary evidence, the Regional Court held in essence, that the applicant
had no locus standi to seek the nullification of the rental agreement in
question.
On 28 January 2008 the Supreme Court rejected the
applicant’s petition for review.
The applicant submitted that subsequently criminal proceedings
had been initiated on a charge of corruption against the judge involved in the
principal proceedings. This case is apparently still pending.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
The applicant complained that the length of the
proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,
everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ...
tribunal...”
The Government contested that argument.
The period to be taken into consideration began
on 10 September 1993 and ended on 28 January 2008. It thus lasted over 14 years
and 4 months for 3 levels of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, this
complaint must be declared admissible, no other grounds for inadmissibility
having been established.
The Court has frequently found violations of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in
the present circumstances (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 application. 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 and the alleged unfairness 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- in so far as they are not premature (see paragraph 9
above) - 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 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the
Convention.
Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the
applicant made a global claim of 680,000 euros (EUR) plus accrued interests in
respect pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim.
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 it EUR 11,500 under this head.
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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application
inadmissible;
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 11,500 (eleven thousand five hundred
euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency
of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in
respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(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 11 June 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Peer
Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
