European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF RÁCZ v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 20264/12)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

18 October 2016

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 




In the case of Rácz v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Nona Tsotsoria, President,
          Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
          Marko Bošnjak, judges,

and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2016,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application (no. 20264/12) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr Zoltán András Rácz (“the applicant”), on 27 March 2012.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms E. Tóth, a lawyer practising in Kecskemét. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent at the Ministry of Justice.

3.  On 26 May 2015 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Kiskunfélegyháza.

5.  The applicant initiated a labour lawsuit against his employer on 1 July 2005 for unpaid remunerations. After remittals on 15 November 2006 and on 8 July 2009, on 25 February 2010 the Kecskemét Labour Court adopted a judgment in which it partly found for the applicant.

6.  On 10 March and 16 November 2011, respectively, the Bács-Kiskun County Court and the Kúria upheld this judgment.

THE LAW

I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

8.  The Government contested that argument.

9.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 1 July 2005 when the applicant introduced his lawsuit (see paragraph 5 above) and ended on 16 November 2011 when the Kúria upheld the first-instance judgment (see paragraph 6 above). It thus lasted more than six years and four months for three levels of jurisdiction.

10.  In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible. In the instant case, the Court observes that the dispute was not of any particular complexity. However, the Court is not satisfied that the authorities exercised the requisite due diligence in bringing the case to an end. Moreover, the applicant or the respondent party have not been shown to have caused any particular delay.

11.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement (see, mutatis mutandis, Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 17, 16 July 2015).

12.  There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  The applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages combined.

14.  The Court considers that the applicant has not established the existence of any pecuniary damage linked to the length of the labour proceedings. It therefore rejects his claim under this head. The Court is of the opinion that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant EUR 1,000 under that head.

15.  The applicant made no claim in respect of costs and expenses. It is therefore not necessary to adopt a decision on the matter.

16.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Declares the application admissible;

 

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

 

3.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(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.

 

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Andrea Tamietti                                                                   Nona Tsotsoria
Deputy Registrar                                                                       President