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 AJZERT v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 18328/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7
November 2006
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 Ajzert v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B.
Baka,
Mr I. Cabral Barreto,
Mrs A. Mularoni,
Mrs E.
Fura-Sandström,
Ms D. Jočienė,
Mr D. Popović,
judges,
and Mr S. Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 17 October 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 18328/03) 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 János
Ajzert (“the applicant”), on 8 May 2003.
- The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
13 September 2005 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 1930 and lives in Budapest.
- On
9 March 1993 the applicant brought an action in the Siófok
District Court, claiming his share of the inheritance of his late
father’s property (öröklési igény
megállapítása). The District Court held
hearings on 9 September, 23 November and 16 December 1993, and 3
February 1994. On 24 February 1994 a further claim of the applicant,
brought under a head of unjustified enrichment (jogalap nélküli
gazdagodás), was joined to the case. A further hearing was
held on 5 July 1994. On 10 September 1994 a real estate expert
submitted his opinion.
- At
the hearing on 20 October 1994, the applicant informed the District
Court that the first respondent, his mother, had died on 3 October
1994. Subsequently, on 27 October 1994 the District Court suspended
the proceedings, which by then involved several respondents, pending
the successor of the first respondent joining the case.
- After
the applicant had identified the successors of his late mother, on 14
March 1995 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the
termination of another case instituted on 21 February 1995, in which
the applicant had requested the District Court to declare his
mother’s will null and void (végrendelet
érvénytelenségének megállapítása).
The court observed that the outcome of those proceedings would be
decisive for the procedural succession. On 19 May 1995 the Somogy
County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
- On
18 May 1995 the competent bench of the Siófok District Court
transferred the case concerning the will’s validity to the
Budapest XX/XXI/XXIII District Court. That court held hearings on a
regular basis until 14 January 2000. On that date, it dismissed the
applicant’s challenge to the validity of the will and
discontinued the proceedings in respect of certain other questions (a
takarékbetétkönyv kifizetése és
a szőlő megművelése tárgyában)
still pending before the Siófok District Court. Moreover, on
26 January 2000 it discontinued the proceedings concerning some
related compensation claims of the applicant (gyümölcsös
megművelésének elmaradása miatti kárigény).
- On
3 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court upheld in essence the
decision of 14 January concerning the will itself. Considering
the first-instance decision as a partial judgment, it observed that
several secondary claims were not examined, in respect of which the
District Court proceedings were to be resumed. Simultaneously, the
court quashed the decision of 26 January 2000, as a result of which
the District Court was to continue the examination of those
compensation claims as well.
- Meanwhile,
the applicant had introduced another claim concerning his statutory
share of the estate (kötelesrész iránti igény),
which was disjoined from the principal question pending before the
XX/XXI/XXIII District Court on 14 January 2000 (see paragraph 8
above). On 23 March 2000 the competent bench of this court suspended
the examination of the issue pending the outcome of the 1993
inheritance proceedings (see paragraphs 5 to 7 above). On 19 October
2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s
appeal against this order.
- Parallel
to these events, on 18 April 2001 the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court
resumed the proceedings concerning the remaining secondary claims
(see paragraph 8 above). It held hearings on 26 April and
3 July 2001. On that day, it dismissed part of the
applicant’s claims and disjoined some others concerning the
restoration of certain buildings (felépítmények
helyreállítására vonatkozó
kereseti kérelem). On 29 January 2002 the Budapest
Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The first
instance proceedings concerning the disjoined claims resumed on
28 February 2002 and were suspended on 19 November 2002, pending
the proceedings in respect of the statutory share (see paragraph 10
above).
- After
the final dismissal on 3 October 2000 of the applicant’s
challenge to the will’s validity (see paragraph 9 above), the
Siófok District Court resumed the 1993 proceedings (see
paragraphs 5 to 7 above). It held hearings on 26 April, 28 June and
20 September 2001. On 31 October 2001 the District Court ordered the
applicant to submit further evidence for his statements and better
particulars of his claims. It held more hearings on 22 November
2001 and 7 February 2002. On 20 February 2002 it dismissed the
applicant’s motion for bias. On 16 April 2002 the District
Court gave judgment, ordering that the applicant’s ownership be
registered in respect of part of the real properties belonging to the
estate. It rejected the remainder of the claims. On 31 October 2002
the Somogy County Regional Court amended this decision.
- Following
the delivery of the above final decision (see paragraph 12)
concerning the 1993 case, the XX/XXI/XXIII District Court resumed the
proceedings concerning the applicant’s statutory share of the
estate on 18 June 2003 (see paragraph 10 above). On 8 July 2003
it discontinued the proceedings. On a procedural appeal, they were
resumed on 20 April 2004. On that date, the District Court dismissed
the applicant’s claim. On appeal, on 23 November 2004 the
Budapest Regional Court changed the first-instance decision and
awarded 33,348 Hungarian forints (HUF) to the applicant.
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 on 9 March 1993 and ended
on 23 November 2004. It thus lasted over eleven years and eight
months for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint 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
case (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 in the instant case 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. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant also complained about the outcome of the proceedings. He
relied on Articles 6, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
- In
so far as the applicant’s 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 (García Ruiz v. Spain
[GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I.).
- In
the present case, the Court is satisfied that there is nothing in the
case file indicating that the courts lacked impartiality or that the
proceedings were otherwise unfair. Moreover, the decisions of the
domestic courts, devoid of any sign of arbitrariness, served to
adjudicate a civil-law dispute between private persons and cannot be
regarded as deprivation of property by a State authority. The Court
therefore considers that the applicant’s submissions do not
disclose any appearance of a violation of his rights under the
Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this complaint is
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and
must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. 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 HUF 18,527,320
in respect of pecuniary damage and HUF 500,000
in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim concerning pecuniary damage.
- 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 the full sum claimed in this
connection, 1,815 euros (EUR).
B. Costs and expenses
- No
claim was made 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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- 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 1,815 (one
thousand eight hundred and fifteen 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 7 November 2006, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
S. Naismith J.-P. Costa
Deputy Registrar President
