Last Updated on October 14, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings.In application no. 49233/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF JUHÁSZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 37026/21 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Juhászand Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 September 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 criminal proceedings.In application no. 49233/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
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 principally that the length of the criminal 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 … any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissierand Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).
8. 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.
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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In application no. 49233/21, the applicant submitted further complaints under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention, which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016, and Barta and Drajkó, cited above, §§ 25-26.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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 criminal proceedings;
4. Holds that in case no. 49233/21 there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5. 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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
AttilaTeplán Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
______________
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
| No. | 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 |
Other complaints under well‑established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 37026/21
12/07/2021 |
István JUHÁSZ
1980 |
VisontaiCsongor
Budapest |
25/03/2016
|
pending
|
More than 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
2,700 | |
| 2. | 47505/21
08/09/2021 |
Etelka GÁSPÁR
1975 |
CsetericsKrisztián
Budapest |
15/12/2013
|
10/06/2021
|
7 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
3,900 | |
| 3. | 49223/21
16/09/2021 |
Oszkár BALOGH
1980 |
Kiss DánielBálint
Budapest |
09/11/2017
|
13/05/2022
|
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.
Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention. Several appeals and reviews of detention were significantly delayed. |
3,400 |
| 4. | 51527/21
29/09/2021 |
Klaudia DANÓ
1984 |
Csugányné Lakatos Csilla
Miskolc |
10/04/2014
|
24/08/2021
|
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 15 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
3,900 | |
| 5. | 55039/21
14/10/2021 |
Péter HEGYI
1990 |
SzabóGábor
Göd |
04/11/2016
|
15/04/2021
|
4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 12 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
2,600 | |
| 6. | 56705/21
10/11/2021 |
Zsuzsanna KÁRPÁTI
1961 |
Molnár Lajos
Budapest |
24/07/2012
|
25/05/2021
|
8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
5,200 | |
| 7. | 58682/21
26/11/2021 |
Alfréd OLÁH
1971 |
KarsaiDánielAndrás
Budapest |
20/09/2016
|
pending
|
More than 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 12 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
2,700 | |
| 8. | 58992/21
29/11/2021 |
Gyula VÁRI
1967 |
Molnár Lajos
Budapest |
24/06/2012
|
25/05/2021
|
8 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
5,200 | |
| 9. | 60141/21
26/11/2021 |
Tibor POLYÁK
1983 |
Bihari István
Budapest |
04/05/2010
|
pending
|
More than 12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 28 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
8,200 | |
| 10. | 2131/22
10/12/2021 |
Zsolt SZÉKELY
1972 |
Patócs Ilona
Tapolca |
25/05/2016
|
08/10/2021
|
5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
|
3,300 |
[1]Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Leave a Reply