LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF FÜRI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 62237/14;66212/14;11982/16;23811/19 • ECHR ID: 001-200318
Document date: January 16, 2020
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
CASE OF FÜRI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 62237/14;66212/14;11982/16;23811/19 • ECHR ID: 001-200318
Document date: January 16, 2020
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF FÃœRI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
( Application no s . 62237/14 and 3 others - see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 6 January 20 20
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Füri and O thers 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 12 December 2019 ,
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 .
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 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 . 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,
(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 1 6 January 20 20 , 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
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant/household
(in euros) [1]
62237/14
08/09/2014
(3 applicants)
Household
Jánosné FÜRI
21/03/1950
Margit FÃœRI
20/01/1971
Valéria FÜRI
20/01/1970
Cech András
Budapest
29/09/1999
12/02/2014
14 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 15 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
10,400
66212/14
05/09/2014
Vilmos B. NAGY
03/03/1949
Fodor Ákos István
Budapest
09/01/2006
13/03/2019
13 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 5 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
9,100
11982/16
24/02/2016
(4 applicants)
Household
Ferenc RÓZSA
20/01/1964
Andrea RÓZSA
11/05/1969
Johanna RÓZSA
31/07/1991
Platina Viktória RÓZSA
08/03/1995
Kodela Viktor
Budapest
28/07/2009
21/03/2017
7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 22 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,600
23811/19
26/04/2019
János Zsolt RIGÓ
17/07/1970
Hatlaczki Gyula
Nagykáta
27/11/2012
22/11/2018
5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 27 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,700
[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants .
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
