The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled that the Hungarian Supreme Court did not violate the right to fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) by refusing to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
Mr Gábor Somorjai was in receipt of a disability pension from 1995. After Hungary was granted EU membership, Mr Somorjai sought a review of his pension rights under EU regulations. At the time of the review, he was being paid 74,361 Hungarian forint per month, which equalled to roughly €250. Upon review and in accordance with EU pension regulations, the Budapest and Pest County Pensions Board increased his monthly pension to €449.
Mr Somorjai appealed against this amount on the grounds that the Pensions Board had included an overlap period in their calculations, wherein which he had been working in Austria but had been paying Hungarian social contributions. The Central Hungary Regional Pensions Board increased his pension to €452 following the appeal.
Unsatisfied with this outcome, Mr Somorjai challenged this decision in the Budapest Labour Court and requested that the Court refer a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling as to the correct interpretation of the EU Regulation 1408/71/EEC. The Labour Court refused to so, upholding the decision of the pension authorities.
Mr Somorjai lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court, which in fact reversed the decision of the Labour Court and ordered new proceedings, declaring that the relevant EU law principles were not taken into account. However, it deemed a request for a preliminary hearing unnecessary as ‘‘the conditions had not been fulfilled.’’
The case was remitted to the Labour Court, which repealed the decision of the pension authorities and a monthly payment of €465 was calculated as per the EU regulations. Mr Somorjai then sought to be compensated with arrears for the whole period following Hungary’s EU accession, although the pension authorities asserted that under Hungarian legislation he was not entitled to this.
Mr Somorjai argued that under EU law, he had a right to an adjusted pension but the refusal of the pension authority adjust the pension for the whole period since Hungary’s accession had amounted to a ‘‘limitation of rights.’’ He argued that the Hungarian courts had not adhered to the EU principle of supremacy, giving preference to national law where it was inconsistent with EU law.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgement of the Labour Court stating that the EU regulation concerned only the acquisition of the right to an adjusted pension and not the payment of arrears, and therefore there was no conflict between EU regulation and Hungarian law on the matter.
The Constitutional Court rejected a subsequent application, there Mr Somorjai brought his complaint to the ECtHR claiming that his right to fair trial under Article 6 had been breached for not referring the question on the interpretation of the EU regulation to the CJEU. He also complained about the length of the proceedings which lasted more than six years and nine months at two levels of administration and two levels of court.
The ECtHR held that while there had been a violation of Article 6 in relation to the lengths of proceedings, the refusal to refer the question to the CJEU was not viewed as such. The Court stated that Mr Somorjai had not actually made such a request for reference to the CJEU at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, declaring that the courts’ refusal to seek an EU preliminary ruling without giving reasons was not arbitrary.
The Court did, however, consider that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement, thereby declaring a breach of Article 6.1 of the Convention. This was taking in to account 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. The Court noted that the case was not exceptionally complex, and the applicant did not cause any delays.
Click here for the full ECHR judgement.