FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF LŐCSEI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 48990/16 and 2 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 April 2020

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

In the case of LÅ‘csei and Others v. Hungary ,

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

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President, Georges Ravarani , Jolien Schukking , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 19 March 2020 ,

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 . The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

THE FACTS

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

4 . The applicant s complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . In application no. 48990/16, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

6 . The applicant s complained principally 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 applicant s and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant s 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.

11 . In application no. 48990/16, the applicant submitted another complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, which also raised issues, 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 35 § 3 (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 Gazsó , cited above, § 21 .

12 . 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.”

13 . 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.

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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant s , 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 9 April 2020 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

             Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

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

( excessive length of civil proceedings )

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

Other complaints under well-established case-law

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

(in euros) [1]

48990/16

15/08/2016

Julianna LŐCSEI

27/05/1966

23/08/2007

17/02/2016

8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings

3,200

19998/19

03/04/2019

Gáborné KONCZ

29/04/1963

Kanyó Péter

Nagykáta

27/10/2012

14/12/2018

6 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

2,300

34021/19

20/06/2019

Ábel János SOMOGYI

01/09/1987

13/09/2013

14/02/2019

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

2,600

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