FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF GAL\u00d3 v. HUNGARY
\n(Application no. 7962\/20)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n22 July 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Gal\u00f3 v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m, President, Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The 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 20\u00a0January\u00a02020.<\/p>\n 2. The Hungarian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. The applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. She 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 6. 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n 7. In 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 8. 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 10. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, 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\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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 it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazs\u00f3, cited above, \u00a7 21.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 11. Article 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. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that this application disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);<\/p>\n 4. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that 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 (a) 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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Attila Tepl\u00e1n \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong> Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n Levels of jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td>\n (in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 20\/01\/2020<\/td>\n 1944<\/td>\n 2 level(s) of jurisdiction<\/td>\n [1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n
\nLorraine Schembri Orland,
\nIoannis Ktistakis, judges,
\nand Attila Tepl\u00e1n, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of civil proceedings)<\/p>\n\n\n
\n Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n Start of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\n End of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\n Total length<\/strong><\/p>\n Other complaints under well-established case-law<\/strong><\/td>\n Amount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n \n 7962\/20<\/p>\n Istv\u00e1nn\u00e9 GAL\u00d3<\/strong><\/p>\n 19\/04\/2010<\/td>\n 20\/07\/2019<\/td>\n 9 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 2 day(s)<\/p>\n Art. 13 – lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings<\/td>\n 5,200<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n