Last Updated on February 10, 2021 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MINDA AND BARBALICS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 1872/20)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Minda and Barbalics v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as aCommittee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 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 20 December2019.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
3. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The list ofapplicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complainedthat the length of the civil proceedings in their case had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …”
7. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
8. In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table to each applicant.
13. 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 it discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay to each 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 amount 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 21January 2021, 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 civil proceedings)
| Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | 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] |
| 1872/20 20/12/2019 |
Zoltán MINDA 1965 István BARBALICS 1955 |
Barbalics István Budapest |
27/04/2009 | pending | More than 11 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 22 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction |
9,100 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply