SECOND SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF LAMBERTNÉ BÁRSONY v. HUNGARY
 
(Application no. 48689/10)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
25 March 2014
 
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lambertné Bársony v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Helen Keller, President,
 András Sajó,
 Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 48689/10) 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, Ms Klára Lambertné Bársony (“the applicant”), on 18 August 2010. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3. On 6 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Miskolc. 5. On 20 April 1998 the applicant brought an action seeking division of the property of her common-law partnership with Mr F. At first instance, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Court heard the case; on appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal. The final judgment was given by the Supreme Court on 2 March 2010. THE LAW
6. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 7. The Government contested that argument. 8. The period to be taken into consideration began on 20 April 1998 and ended on 2 March 2010. It thus lasted almost twelve years for three levels of jurisdiction. 9. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 10. 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). 11. 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. 12. The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the outcome of the litigation. The Court notes that the domestic courts decided on a civil-law litigation between private parties. Their decisions, free of any appearance of arbitrariness, cannot be regarded as constituting an interference with the applicant’s property rights. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. 13. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed approximately 211,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR 23,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 14. The Government contested these claims. 15. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards her EUR 5,400 under that head. 16. The applicant also claimed EUR 5,300 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. 17. The Government contested the claim. 18. 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 not represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 500 under this head. 19. 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.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation