{"id":1461,"date":"2019-04-23T12:18:27","date_gmt":"2019-04-23T12:18:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1461"},"modified":"2021-09-22T11:57:32","modified_gmt":"2021-09-22T11:57:32","slug":"case-of-kormendy-majnek-v-hungary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1461","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF K\u00d6RMENDY-MAJNEK v. HUNGARY (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF K\u00d6RMENDY-MAJNEK v. HUNGARY
\n(Application no. 28496\/17)<\/em><\/p>\n

JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 March 2019<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of K\u00f6rmendy-Majnek v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Georges Ravarani, President,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2019,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 7 April 2017.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr L. Moln\u00e1r, a lawyer practising in Budapest.<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the application was given to the Hungarian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. She relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

Article 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0\u00a0The 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, P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a025444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999\u2011II, and Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR\u00a02000\u2011VII).<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Barta and Drajk\u00f3 v. Hungary, no. 35729\/12, 17\u00a0December 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n

9.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n

10.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

12.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

13.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that it discloses a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

(a)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Liv Tigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Georges Ravarani
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/p>\n

Application raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n

(excessive length of criminal proceedings)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nStart of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\nEnd of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal length<\/strong><\/p>\n

Levels of jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

28496\/17<\/p>\n

07\/04\/2017<\/td>\n

Orsolya D\u00f3ra K\u00f6rmendy-Majnek<\/strong><\/p>\n

17\/12\/1982<\/td>\n

Moln\u00e1r L\u00e1szl\u00f3 S\u00e1ndor<\/p>\n

Budapest<\/td>\n

30\/08\/2010<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

20\/04\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 22 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction<\/td>\n4,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n