CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s60723A49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11D629FA { width:144.93pt; display:inline-block } .s2BB2041E { width:164.95pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF SZEPES v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 77669/12)               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   11 June 2013     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Szepes 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 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 77669/12) 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 Róbert Péter Szepes (“the applicant”), on 1 December 2012. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms L. Szabó, a lawyer practising in Budakeszi. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3.     On 21 January 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest. 5.     On 25 August 1997 the applicant’s neighbour brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish that she had acquired ownership through adverse possession of the applicant’s plot of land. On 29 April 1998 the court held the first hearing. 6.     At the hearing of 5 October 1998 the applicant submitted a counter-claim for usage charges against the plaintiff. The court suspended the proceedings pending the land registry proceedings seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan. 7.     The next hearing took place on 28 October 2002. At the following hearing of 17 February 2003 the court again suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry proceedings before the district notary, which finally took place on 3 June 2003. 8.     The next court hearing was held on 26 September 2005. On 19   March   2008 the District Court gave a judgment. This was quashed on appeal on 29   May 2009 and the case was remitted to the first-instance court. 9.     In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered its judgment on 12 December 2011, establishing that the plaintiff had not acquired ownership of part of the property and ordering her to pay usage charge to the applicant. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 13 June 2012. THE LAW 10.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11.     The Government contested that argument. 12.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 27 August 1997 and ended on 13 June 2012. It thus lasted for fourteen years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction and included a suspension pending the outcome of an underlying administrative dispute. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 13.     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). 14.     The Court observes that the administrative proceedings to establish the boundary lines of the disputed land – lasting almost seven years – formed an integral part of the proceedings, which cannot be considered separately for the purposes of the length of the proceedings. There is no appearance that the applicant abused his procedural rights in this respect. The delay arising out of these proceedings cannot thus be attributed to him, and must be imputed to the State. 15.     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). 16.     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. 17.     The applicant further complained that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 18.     The Court notes that this complaint is linked to the one examined above and must therefore likewise be declared admissible. 19.     Having regard to its finding under Article 6 § 1 (see paragraph 16 above), the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether, in this case, there has been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (see Zanghì v. Italy , 19 February 1991, §   23, Series A no. 194-C). 20.     Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 12,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR 9,000 under this head. 21.     The applicant also claimed 600,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately EUR 2,000) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 in respect of all the costs incurred. 22.     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 application admissible;   2.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;   3.     Holds that there is no need to examine the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement: (i)     EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)     EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts 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 11 June 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Françoise Elens-Passos   Peer Lorenzen Acting Deputy Registrar   President