BARNA v. HUNGARY - 40465/04 [2007] ECHR 793 (9 October 2007)

JUDGMENT STRASBOURG October 2007 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 Barna v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of: Mrs F. Tulkens, President, Mr A. B. Baka, Mr I. Cabral Barreto, Mr R. Türmen, Mr M. Ugrekhelidze, Mrs A. Mularoni, Mr D. Popović, judges, and Mrs F. Elens-passos, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE The case originated in an application (no. 40465/04) 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, Ms Zsuzsanna Barna (“the applicant”), on 23 September 2004 . The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement. On 23 November 2006 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Budapest. In 1990 the applicant and other plaintiffs filed an action for the settlement of accounts between certain individuals with whom she had built a block of flats. On 11 September 1990 the Buda Central District Court discontinued the proceedings. On appeal, on 19 December 1990 the case was remitted to the first-instance court. After numerous hearings in the resumed proceedings, on 24 April 1996 the District Court found in part for the applicant. On appeal, on 6 March 1998 the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court. In the resumed proceedings, numerous hearings took place between 11 February 1999 and 2 December 2004. The court also obtained the opinion of an expert. On 19 April 2005 the District Court found in part for the applicant. This decision was amended by the Regional Court on 22 February 2006. THE LAW I. 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 only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court observes that on that date the case had already been pending for some two years. The period in question ended on 22 February 2006. It thus lasted over 13 years and three months for two levels of jurisdiction. A. Admissibility The Court notes 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. B. Merits The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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 , cited above). 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 case. 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. II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION Article 41 of the Convention provides: “ If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” A. Damage The applicant claimed 28,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court awards the applicant EUR 13,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage on an equitable basis. B. Costs and expenses The applicant made no claim under this head. C. Default interest 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, EUR 13,000 (thirteen thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable; (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. F. Elens-passos F. Tulkens Deputy Registrar President BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII