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 TAKÁCS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 58773/18;12844/19;12846/19;13821/19;13856/19;13860/19;14156/19;14167/19 • ECHR ID: 001-198468
Document date: November 14, 2019
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
CASE OF TAKÁCS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 58773/18;12844/19;12846/19;13821/19;13856/19;13860/19;14156/19;14167/19 • ECHR ID: 001-198468
Document date: November 14, 2019
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF TAKÁCS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
( Application no. 58773/18 and 7 others - see appended list )
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
1 4 Novem ber 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Takács 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 24 October 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 criminal 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 criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII).
8 . In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013 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 as to 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 (see, in particular, Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013), the Court finds 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 14 November 2019 , 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 criminal 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
(in euros) [1]
58773/18
07/12/2018
Krisztián Takács
25/03/1972
Visontai Csongor
Budapest
24/07/2012
09/11/2018
6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,300
12844/19
05/03/2019
Richárd Kiss
29/04/1984
Hatlaczki Gyula
Nagykáta
18/03/2010
10/09/2018
8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,600
12846/19
05/03/2019
Tibor Pupos
11/05/1972
Hatlaczki Gyula
Nagykáta
18/03/2010
10/09/2018
8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,600
13821/19
05/03/2019
János Vidák
30/09/1987
Hatlaczki Gyula
Nagykáta
18/03/2010
03/10/2018
8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,200
13856/19
05/03/2019
József Vidák
02/10/1989
Hatlaczki Gyula
Nagykáta
18/03/2010
03/10/2018
8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,200
13860/19
05/03/2019
Zoltán Nagy
29/12/1990
Hatlaczki Gyula
Nagykáta
18/03/2010
21/01/2019
8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 4 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,200
14156/19
08/03/2019
Attila Titkos
23/02/1970
Kanyó Péter
Nagykáta
25/09/2008
13/09/2018
9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,500
14167/19
08/03/2019
Zsuzsánna Szarvas
11/11/1964
Kanyó Péter
Nagykáta
16/09/2008
13/09/2018
9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,500
[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants .
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
