European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> NAGY v. HUNGARY - 40114/12 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 142 (08 February 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/142.html
Cite as: [2018] ECHR 142, CE:ECHR:2018:0208JUD004011412, ECLI:CE:ECHR:2018:0208JUD004011412

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 40114/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

8 February 2018

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

In the case of Nagy v. Hungary,

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

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 18 January 2018,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application 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 Sándor Nagy ("the applicant") on 18 June 2012.

2. The application was communicated to the Hungarian Government ("the Government").

THE FACTS

3. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Budapest.

4. He complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings which lasted six years and four months (between 26 November 2007 and 2 April 2014) for two levels of jurisdiction.

THE LAW

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

5. The applicant complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article § 1

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ..."

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. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

7. In the leading case of Gazsó 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.

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 "reasonable time" requirement.

9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:

"If 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."

11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-�law, the Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant 1,750 euros (EUR) under that head.

12. The applicant made no claim for costs. The Court is therefore not called upon to make any awards in this respect.

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.

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;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 1,750 (one thousand seven hundred and fifty 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 amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 February 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident