The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of P\u00f3cza and Others 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 9 December 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 1\u00a0March\u00a02021.<\/p>\n 2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest.<\/p>\n 3. The Hungarian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6. The 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\u00a06\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. 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.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n 8. 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 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n 10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. OTHER COMPLAINTS<\/p>\n 11. The applicant Ms Ilona Bal\u00e1zsn\u00e9 Pag\u00e1cs also complained that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. However, the Court observes that the same applicant has already made an identical complaint in application no. 390\/21. In these circumstances, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article\u00a035 of the Convention.<\/p>\n It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 12. 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 13. Regard 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. 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 complaint of Ms Ilona Bal\u00e1zsn\u00e9 Pag\u00e1cs inadmissible and the remainder of the application (72 applicants) admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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) 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 13 January 2022, 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF P\u00d3CZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 13353\/21)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n13 January 2022<\/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\u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of civil proceedings)<\/p>\n