SECOND SECTION

Application no. 22840/07 Lee Sydney HARRISON Mc KEE against Hungary lodged on 22 May 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Lee Sydney Harrison McKee, is an Australian national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Canberra, Australia.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 2003 the applicant, who was represented by a Hungarian lawyer throughout the proceedings, initiated civil proceedings against a public prosecutor assigned to the Hungarian Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor ’ s Office itself, and the Office of the Attorney General, alleging a violation of his personality rights.

In particular, the applicant complained that a letter sent in the course of criminal proceedings conducted against him by the public prosecutor to the Pest Central District Court had contained false information about him and thus infringed his right to honour, dignity and reputation.

The applicant subsequently modified his claim, seeking non-pecuniary damages in respect of the violation of his personality rights in the amount of 390,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 1,314,000 euros (EUR)).

The Budapest Regional Court delivered a judgment on 22 September 2005. It discontinued the proceedings against the Budapest Regional Public Prosecutor ’ s Office, since it had no procedural standing. As to the remainder of the claims, it held that the applicant ’ s right to reputation had indeed been violated by the public prosecutor ’ s statements. However, it dismissed the applicant ’ s claim for compensation, stating that it was excessive and in any event he could not prove that he had suffered any actual damage. The court further applied section 39 of Act no. XCIII of 1990 on Stamp Duties and ordered the applicant to pay HUF 879,000 (approximately EUR 2,900) in court fees. Under this rule, at the material time, the amount of stamp duty in civil cases was 6 % of the claim but should exceed a minimum of HUF 15,000 (approximately EUR 50) and should not exceed a maximum of HUF 900,000 (approximately EUR 3,000). In a subsequent supplementary decision on court costs, the court explained that the law required the payment of court fees proportionately to the dismissed part of the claim.

The applicant appealed to the Budapest Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal by a judgment of 3 October 2006. As regards the costs, the court upheld the position taken by the Budapest Regional Court, that is, that the applicant should pay court fees calculated as a percentage of the dismissed part of his claims. It further ordered the applicant to pay HUF 900,000 (approximately EUR 3,000) in appellate fees.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that he had been ordered to pay excessive court fees. He further claimed that the domestic courts did not examine the merits of some of his arguments. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In light of the Court ’ s findings in Stankov v. Bulgaria (no. 68490/01, 12 July 2007), has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention?

2. In particular, was there an interference with the very essence of the applicant ’ s right to a court in that he was ordered to pay considerable court fees although the courts partly upheld his claims?

3. If so, did the interference in question pursue a legitimate aim, and were the means used proportionate to the aim pursued?