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 MEZEY v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 7909/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 October
2008
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 Mezey v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Antonella
Mularoni,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and
Sally Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 23 September 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 7909/05) 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 Tamás Mezey
(“the applicant”), on 27 January 2005.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr T. Szemes, a lawyer practising in
Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”)
were represented by Mr. L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice
and Law Enforcement.
- On
16 January 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application
to the Government. Under the provision of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest.
- The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be submitted as
follows.
- The
applicant lived in conjugal community with S.S. During their
relationship, S.S. gave birth to a boy on 24 June 1998. The child was
registered under his mother's family name. For the first five months
the couple raised the child together. Subsequently, the relationship
deteriorated and the applicant left their common home.
- Since
the applicant's parental status had not been resolved legally, he
repeatedly initiated proceedings for an official declaration of
paternity (teljes hatályú apai elismerő
nyilatkozat). However, the mother refused to give her consent to
the statement, which is required by law for such a statement to be
valid. Moreover, the mother has not allowed the applicant to see the
child at all.
- In
January 2000 the applicant brought an action against the child and
the mother before the Pest Central District Court asking the court to
establish paternity.
- Between
April 2000 and July 2001 the District Court held five unsuccessful
hearings, which the mother did not attend despite a fine being
imposed on her. The District Court sought assistance from the police
in order to secure her presence at the hearings but to no avail.
- In
November 2001 a medical expert examined the applicant and the child.
The expert could not establish with complete certainty whether the
applicant was the father of the child or not, but she “believed
it probable”.
- In
the meantime, a third individual, G.N., made a formal declaration of
paternity which was accepted by the mother. Since the paternal status
had been resolved, the District Court terminated the proceedings in
January 2002.
- On
appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the first-instance
decision and remitted the case to the District Court in April 2002.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the District Court suspended the procedure
and initiated a constitutional review of the applicable legal
provisions to be applied in December 2002.
- According
to the information submitted by the parties, the case is still
pending before the Constitutional Court and consequently before the
District Court.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 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 in January 2000 and has
not yet ended, according to the information available in the case
file on the date of adoption of the present judgment. It has thus
lasted some eight 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). On the latter point, cases relating to civil
status require special diligence in view of the possible consequences
which the excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on
enjoyment of the right to respect for family life (see Laino v.
Italy [GC], no. 3158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I).
- 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 circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject,
the Court finds that the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement. The
Court finds especially regrettable in this connection that the
Constitutional Court, a State body required to determine a
preliminary legal question in the case, delayed the proceedings by
failing to deliver its decision for over five years.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF
ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings had
infringed his right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed by
Article 8 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life,...
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society ...
for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
- The
Court notes that this complaint is linked to that under Article 6 § 1
of the Convention which has already been examined above and must
therefore, likewise, be declared admissible. However, having regard
to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 22 above), the
Court considers that it is not necessary to examine separately
whether there has also been a violation of Article 8 (see
Paulsen-Medalen and Svensson v. Sweden, judgment of 19
February 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 I,
p. 145, § 50).
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 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested this claim.
- The
Court awards the applicant, on an equitable basis, EUR 7,000 for
non-pecuniary damages, account also being taken of what was at stake
in the dispute.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not put forward any 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 that there is no need to examine
separately the complaint under Article 8 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 7,000
(seven 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 October 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
