Last Updated on May 5, 2022 by LawEuro
The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”). The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 4080/21 and 5 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
5 May 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Értékszállítási és Őrzésvédelmi Dolgozók Szakszervezete and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Raffaele Sabato,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. 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.
III. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 5 May 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
___________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
| No. | Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/registration
|
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] |
| 1. | 4080/21
17/12/2020 |
ÉRTÉKSZÁLLÍTÁSI ÉS ŐRZÉSVÉDELMI DOLGOZÓK SZAKSZERVEZETE
1993 |
Barbalics István
Budapest |
16/01/2007 | pending | More than 15 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction | 8,200 |
| 2. | 14520/21
08/03/2021 |
Danica OSZTOICS
1971 |
|
13/01/2009 | 09/09/2020 | 11 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 28 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction |
7,800 |
| 3. | 19305/21
31/03/2021 |
Domonkos MÁTÉ
1985 |
|
26/06/2017 | 13/10/2021 | 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction |
1,800 |
| 4. | 21280/21
07/04/2021 |
Augustin SILAGHI
1982 |
|
07/05/2018 | pending | More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction | 1,600 |
| 5. | 38923/21
26/07/2021 |
Tibor KAPÁS
1963 |
Szabó Gábor
Göd |
20/04/2013 | pending | More than 8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 23 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction | 5,500 |
| 6. | 44277/21
31/08/2021 |
Tamás Attila SÖRLEI
1955 |
Cech András
Budapest |
10/06/2011 | 29/04/2021 | 9 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 20 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction |
6,500 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply