SECOND SECTION
CASE OF
AGROLA TRADE KFT. v. HUNGARY
(Application no.
8034/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 October 2013
This judgment is final but it may
be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Agrola Trade Kft. 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 Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
date:
PROCEDURE
The case originated in an application
(no. 8034/07) 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 limited liability company, Agrola Trade Kft.
(“the applicant”), on 7 February 2007.
The applicant was
represented by Mr J. Paraizs, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry
of Public Administration and Justice.
On 8 February 2010 the application was
communicated to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
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 limited liability company with
it seat in Budapest.
On 21 December 1995 the applicant’s predecessor
obtained a retroactive building permit from the second-instance building
control authority. On 10 February 1996 the neighbours brought an action
seeking the judicial review of the administrative decision before the Pest
Central District Court.
After six hearings the case was transferred to
the Budapest Regional Court.
On 10 October 2000 the proceedings were
interrupted due to the death of the fourth plaintiff.
On 21 March 2001 the applicant company requested
permission to enter the proceedings as an intervener (beavatkozó) on the
respondent’s side.
After the parties had resolved the question of
succession of the deceased party, on 9 December 2003 the proceedings were
resumed, and the applicant joined the case as intervener. On the same day the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment.
On 2 March 2005 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting
as a second-instance court, quashed the judgment, and remitted the case to the
first instance.
On 1 December 2005 and 22 November 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held two hearings.
On 16 April 2008 a final judgment was adopted in
the case.
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 in
respect of the applicant began on 21 March 2001 when the applicant applied to
be an intervener in the case (see paragraph 8 above). It ended on 16 April 2008.
It thus lasted about seven years and one month for two 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, among many other authorities, 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.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
The applicant further complained that there was
no relevant remedy available to accelerate the proceedings or obtain redress
for their protraction. It relied on Article 13 of the Convention.
The Government argued that, after 1 April 2006,
the applicant could have made an objection (kifogás) to accelerate the case.
In the applicant’s view, this is not an effective remedy.
The Court considers that this complaint is
likewise admissible.
It further considers that it is not necessary to
examine in the present case the effectiveness, as such, of the remedy suggested
by the Government, because on 1 April 2006 the proceedings had already
been pending for five years. In the Court’s view, even assuming that the case
could have been accelerated subsequent to this date by virtue of an objection,
this could not have possibly remedied the substantial delay already sustained.
Furthermore, the Court notes that it has not been argued at all that an
objection could have resulted in pecuniary compensation for the applicant in
order to redress the grievance caused by the protraction of the litigation
(compare and contrast Grzinčič v. Slovenia, no. 26867/02, § 98,
3 May 2007).
In these circumstances, the Court finds that
there has been no adequate remedy available to the applicant in respect of the
overall length of the present case in respect of its complaint about the length
of the proceedings.
There has been therefore a violation of Article 13 read in conjunction
with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Finally, the applicant claimed that the length
of the proceedings had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its
possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
In so far as this complaint has not been
consumed by the one concerning the length of the proceedings, the Court
considers that there is no appearance in the case file that there was any
interference by the State with the applicant’s property rights on account of
the litigation in question. The subject matter of the case was a dispute
between private parties, without any indication of arbitrary deprivation of
property. It follows that this complaint is
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a)
and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
Relying on Article 41of the Convention, the applicant
claimed 11 million Hungarian forints
in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined. 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.
Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant EUR 4,800 under that
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 complaints concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings and the absence of a remedy 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 that there has been a violation of
Article 13 read in conjunction with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
4. Holds,
(a) that the respondent
State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,800 (four thousand
eight hundred euros), to be converted into the
currency of the respondent State 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;
5. Dismisses the
remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2013,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Atilla Nalbant Peer
Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
