SECOND SECTION

CASE OF ZOLTÁNNÉ KALMÁR v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 16073/07)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

27 July 2010

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Zoltánné Kalmár v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Dragoljub Popović, President,
	András Sajó,
	Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-PassosSection Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 July 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in  against  lodged with the  of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by .
2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Public Administration.
3.  On  the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a committee of three Judges. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 1).
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 6 March 1995 the applicant and another plaintiff brought an action before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the invalidation of a contract.
6.  On 7 May 1996 the court held a hearing and, on 21 June 1996, appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 24 June 1998.
7.  On 20 October 1998, 12 January, 9 March, 11 May and 22 June 1999 hearings were held. Subsequently the proceedings were interrupted on account of the death of the applicant's co-plaintiff. On 28 January 2000 a successor joined the proceedings.
8.  On 10 March 2000 the case was suspended pending the termination of criminal proceedings against the respondents which the court considered a preliminary question. This prosecution, conducted on charges of financial fraud, originated in 1997. On 13 May 2005 the plaintiffs informed the court of the termination of the criminal case by the appellate criminal court and requested the continuation of the civil proceedings.
9.  On 30 August, 5 and 8 November 2005 the court held hearings. On 15 November 2005 it gave judgment, finding for the plaintiffs. On 29 November 2005 the respondents appealed.
10.  On 5 October 2006 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by judgment of 15 February 2007, upheld the first-instance decision.
11.  On 11 May 2007 the respondents filed a petition for review. By its review judgment of 27 November 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the final judgment.
THE LAW
12.  The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that argument, submitting in essence that the suspension of the proceedings complained of (see paragraph 8 above), a measure in place for some five years, was inevitable in the circumstances, and its duration should be deducted from the overall length.
13.  The Court observes that the criminal proceedings, with regard to which the applicant's action was suspended between March 2000 and 
May 2005, themselves lasted some eight years for two levels of jurisdiction. For the Court, this duration alone raises concerns, even in a potentially complex fraud case. Consequently, the necessity to suspend the principal case pending the criminal one cannot as such exculpate the authorities for the entire protraction. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration lasted almost twelve years and nine months 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, 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.
15.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 9,600 under this head.
16.  The applicant also claimed EUR 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 900 for those incurred before the Court, the latter item being billable by his lawyer. The Government contested the claim.
17.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and in the light of its case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the full sum claimed, that is, EUR 900 for the proceedings before the Court.
18.  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
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, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 9,600 (nine thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 900 (nine hundred 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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 July 2010, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Françoise Elens-Passos	Dragoljub Popović
	Deputy Registrar	President