British and Irish Legal Information Institute

Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> JUHASZ-BUDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY - 3189/14 (Judgment : Article 6 - Right to a fair trial : Fourth Section Committee) [2018] ECHR 941 (15 November 2018)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2018/941.html
Cite as: [2018] ECHR 941

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF JUHÁSZ-BUDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 3189/14and 5 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

15 November 2018

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

In the case of Juhász-Buday and Others v. Hungary,

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

Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 October 2018,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government ("the Government").

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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

6. The applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

Article 6 § 1

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

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

8. 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.

9. 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.

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

III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11. 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."

12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-�law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

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. Decides to join the applications;

2. Declares the applications admissible;

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, 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 15 November 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani
Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant's name Date of birth	Representative's name and location	Start of proceedings	End of proceedings	Total length Levels of jurisdiction	Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]
3189/14 19/12/2013	Ferencné Juhász-Buday 12/06/1957	Urbánné Csató Julianna Budapest	25/02/2004 08/06/2010 20/01/2015	26/06/2009 03/08/2011 07/07/2016	5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction 1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction 1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,000
9269/14 23/01/2014	János Szabó 29/10/1937		01/03/2005	13/12/2013	8 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	4,000
14955/14 12/02/2014	Edit Nikodém 16/05/1955	Pottondi Edit Budapest	04/05/2006	05/04/2016	9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	5,000
17949/14 22/02/2014	Jenő Kulcsár 02/11/1949	Simor Miklós Budapest	25/05/2005	29/11/2013	8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	4,000
19446/14 28/02/2014	László Kovács 04/01/1932	Vigh Károly Budapest	08/01/2007	12/06/2013	6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction	800
39007/14 15/05/2014	Gergely Lugosi 30/03/1971		23/01/2008	27/09/2013	5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction	3,300

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant's name

Date of birth

Representative's name and location

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant

(in euros) [1]

3189/14

19/12/2013

Ferencné Juhász-Buday

12/06/1957

Urbánné Csató Julianna

Budapest

25/02/2004

08/06/2010

20/01/2015

26/06/2009

03/08/2011

07/07/2016

5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction

1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 18 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,000

9269/14

23/01/2014

János Szabó

29/10/1937

01/03/2005

13/12/2013

8 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

4,000

14955/14

12/02/2014

Edit Nikodém

16/05/1955

Pottondi Edit

Budapest

04/05/2006

05/04/2016

9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

5,000

17949/14

22/02/2014

Jenő Kulcsár

02/11/1949

Simor Miklós

Budapest

25/05/2005

29/11/2013

8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

4,000

19446/14

28/02/2014

László Kovács

04/01/1932

Vigh Károly

Budapest

08/01/2007

12/06/2013

6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

800

39007/14

15/05/2014

Gergely Lugosi

30/03/1971

23/01/2008

27/09/2013

5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,300

[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.