{"id":1471,"date":"2019-04-23T15:33:05","date_gmt":"2019-04-23T15:33:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1471"},"modified":"2019-04-24T15:04:37","modified_gmt":"2019-04-24T15:04:37","slug":"case-of-benyo-and-others-v-hungary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=1471","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BENY\u00d3 AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF BENY\u00d3 AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
\n(Application no. 76237\/13 and 2 others applications -see appended list)<\/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 Beny\u00f3 and Others v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

Georges Ravarani, President,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9terPaczolay, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedtActingDeputy 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 applications 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

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

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

3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.In application no.\u00a014935\/15, the applicants also raised acomplaint under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

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

I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

5.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

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

6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. They relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

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

\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n

8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of Gazs\u00f3 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.<\/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 on 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\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

III.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n

11.\u00a0\u00a0In application no.\u00a014935\/15, the applicants submitted another complaint which raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazs\u00f3 v. Hungary (cited above, \u00a7 21).<\/p>\n

IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

12.\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

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

14.\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\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that, in application no.\u00a014935\/15, there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well\u2011established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n

5\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n

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

(b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/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

LivTigerstedt\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\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

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

(excessive length of civil proceedings)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

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

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

Date of birth <\/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

Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n76237\/13<\/p>\n

18\/11\/2013<\/p>\n

(4 applicants)<\/td>\n

Guszt\u00e1vBeny\u00f3<\/strong><\/p>\n

04\/12\/1959<\/p>\n

Istv\u00e1n S\u00c1NDOR<\/strong><\/p>\n

02\/08\/1947<\/p>\n

L\u00e1szl\u00f3 SZ\u00c9P<\/strong><\/p>\n

03\/04\/1975<\/p>\n

Andrea SZ\u00c9P<\/strong><\/p>\n

19\/02\/1974<\/td>\n

M\u00e9sz\u00e1rosIstv\u00e1nS\u00e1ndor<\/p>\n

Budapest<\/td>\n

05\/09\/2001<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

21\/05\/2013<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

11 year(s) and 8\u00a0month(s) and 17 day(s)<\/p>\n

3 level(s) of jurisdiction<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n7,800 each to<\/p>\n

Guszt\u00e1vBeny\u00f3 and<\/p>\n

Istv\u00e1nS\u00e1ndor<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

3,900 each to<\/p>\n

L\u00e1szl\u00f3Sz\u00e9p and<\/p>\n

Andrea Sz\u00e9p<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

2.<\/td>\n14935\/15<\/p>\n

19\/03\/2015<\/p>\n

(7 applicants)<\/td>\n

J\u00e1nosn\u00e9Bath\u00f3<\/strong><\/p>\n

11\/12\/1969<\/p>\n

Erzs\u00e9bet GYURKOVICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

17\/03\/1953<\/p>\n

Szabolcs HEGED\u0170S<\/strong><\/p>\n

28\/07\/1979<\/p>\n

J\u00f3zsefIstv\u00e1n MELOVICS<\/strong><\/p>\n

21\/06\/1980<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

K\u00e1rolyImre PINT\u00c1CSI<\/strong><\/p>\n

02\/03\/1960<\/p>\n

Tibor L\u00e1szl\u00f3 STEIGER<\/strong><\/p>\n

19\/11\/1961<\/p>\n

Attila SZKLAD\u00c1NYI<\/strong><\/p>\n

10\/06\/1981<\/td>\n

KarsaiD\u00e1nielAndr\u00e1s<\/p>\n

Budapest<\/td>\n

18\/07\/2007<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

30\/01\/2015<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

7 year(s) and 6\u00a0month(s) and 13 day(s)<\/p>\n

3 level(s) of jurisdiction<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings –<\/td>\n2,600<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3.<\/td>\n27900\/15<\/p>\n

12\/05\/2015<\/p>\n

(6 applicants)<\/td>\n

Zolt\u00e1n Demeter<\/strong><\/p>\n

15\/12\/1958<\/p>\n

L\u00e1szl\u00f3 LENDVAY<\/strong><\/p>\n

28\/09\/1972<\/p>\n

L\u00e1szl\u00f3 VARGA<\/strong><\/p>\n

31\/01\/1981<\/p>\n

Gy\u00f6rgy VASKOR<\/strong><\/p>\n

07\/11\/1971<\/p>\n

S\u00e1ndor Attila KISS<\/strong><\/p>\n

20\/11\/1967<\/p>\n

Istv\u00e1n KIR\u00c1LY<\/strong><\/p>\n

06\/10\/1961<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Kulisityn\u00e9Juh\u00e1szM\u00e1ria<\/p>\n

Eger<\/td>\n

13\/08\/2008<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

27\/11\/2014<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 15 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n3,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n