SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MÜLLER v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 62930/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 October 2013
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
MÜLLER v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
1
In the case of Müller 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
1. The case originated in an application (no. 62930/12) 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 Tibor Müller (“the
applicant”), on 1 October 2012.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 31 January 2013 the application was communicated to the
Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 25 November 2002 the applicant lodged an action for annulment
of a property sale and purchase agreement with the Budapest XVIII and
XIX District Court.
6. On 10 April 2003 the court held the first hearing and transmitted the
case to the Budapest Regional Court for reasons of competence.
7. On 12 April 2005, after one hearing, the proceedings were
interrupted. On 20 April 2005, and subsequently on another three occasions,
the applicant requested the continuation of the proceedings, which were
eventually resumed in 2008.
8. On 7 December 2009 the court delivered a decision dismissing the
applicant’s action.
9. On 28 October 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal, acting as a
second-instance court, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
2
MÜLLER v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
10. On 29 November 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s
petition for review, after an examination on the merits. This decision was
served on the applicant’s lawyer on 2 April 2012.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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...”
12. The Government contested that argument.
13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 25 November
2002 and ended on 29 November 2011. It thus lasted nine years for three
levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint
must be declared admissible.
14. 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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43,
ECHR 2000-VII).
15. 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.
16. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage.
17. The Government contested the claims.
18. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some
non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR 3,000.
19. The applicant made no costs claim.
20. 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.
MÜLLER v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT
3
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
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three
months, EUR 3,000 (three 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;
4. 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
Acting Deputy Registrar
Peer Lorenzen
President