FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF BARTOS v. HUNGARY
\n(Application no. 6240\/18)
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n17 January 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Bartos v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Georges Ravarani, President, Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2018,<\/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 29\u00a0December\u00a02017.<\/p>\n 2. Notice of the application was given to the Hungarian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3. The list ofapplicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. They also raised another complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 5. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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\u00a0\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 Bartha v. Hungary (no. 33486\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 20-21, 25 March 2014).<\/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 sums 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 it discloses 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 complaint 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 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 17January 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 Georges Ravarani ___________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n Application raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n
\n(excessive length of civil proceedings)<\/p>\n