Last Updated on December 10, 2020 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF HADOBÁS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 3686/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Hadobás v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 January 2020.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal…”
6. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: 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 (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
7. In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary (no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013) the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
12. 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.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Start of proceedings | End of proceedings | Total length
Levels of jurisdiction |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1]
|
| 3686/20
06/01/2020 |
Szabolcs HADOBÁS
1975 |
01/09/2013
|
27/11/2019
|
6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 27 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
1,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply