Last Updated on April 28, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF RONTÓNÉ SZÉP AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 390/21)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rontóné Szép and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,
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 5 December 2020.
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 of applicants 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 complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question 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 sums indicated in the appended table.
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 this application disclose 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 the applicants, 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 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström
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 /household (in euros)[1] |
| 390/21
05/12/2020 (75 applicants) |
Ágnes RONTÓNÉ SZÉP
1952 Lászlóné BAJI 1940 Ilona BALÁZSNÉ PAGÁCS 1949 Géza Károly BIEDER 1950 Lajosné BOROS 1959 József BRETUS 1944 József BUKTA 1942 Magdolna CSAPLÁR 1944 István CSŐVÁRI 1954 Pálné CZICZKA 1954 Katalin DANKÁNÉ LENTE 1955 Gézáné DÉNES 1948 Rezső DÉNES 1954 Vince DÉNES 1962 András DURST 1958 Józsefné EGRI 1952 Gergely FAHIDI 1962 Vilmos FARKAS 1934 Péter GESZTESI-GROSS 1960 László GÖNDÖR 1941 Jenő GYŐRFI 1946 András HÓDOS 1951 Ferenc HUSZÁR 1941 László IVÁNYI 1945 Ágnes KÁLDY-NAGY 1956 János KALUHA 1950 Jánosné KASTÉLY 1926 Ramóna KAZINCZKI 1976 József KENESEI 1964 Antal KEREKES 1939 János KIS 1951 Lajosné KISS 1935 József KOMPANIK 1945 István József KOPIK 1944 Géza KORMOS 1959 Józsefné KOVÁCS 1931 Ottóné KOVÁCS 1933 Marianna Ilona KUNYIKNÉ JÁRÓ 1955 József KURUSA 1939 József LAJKÓ 1950 Ádám LÁNG 1954 Albert LOVAS 1949 Miklós LUKÁCS 1949 Tiborné MARKOS 1949 Klára MÁTÉ 1968 Sándor MIHICS 1956 István MIKÓ 1968 Ferenc MÓZER 1942 Ferenc NAGY 1949 Sándor NEMES 1962 Károlyné NÉMETH 1953 István PALKOVICS 1956 Jánosné PÉK 1941
Ferenc PÉLI 1959 Ferencné PETHŐ 1956 Ferenc PSZOTA 1955 Imréné RÁBA 1938 Sándorné ROHOSKA 1948 Sándor István RUTTKAI 1947 László STARK 1942 Sándorné SZABÓ 1948 József SZÉP 1953 Julianna SZIRÁKINÉ SZÉP 1952 Gizella SZŐKE 1957 Lászlóné TIHANYI 1942 László TÓTH 1946 János UNYI 1951
Household Zoltán GÁL 1942 Zoltánné GÁL 1949
Household Ferenc RÉVAI 1952 Ferencné RÉVAI 1952
Household József LÖFFER 1933 Veronika LÖFFER 1937
Household Erika NÉMETH 1961 Piroska NÉMETH 1967 |
Barbalics István
Budapest |
05/11/1992
|
pending
|
More than 29 year(s) and 5 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
9,100 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply