Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF CZEBE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 72114/13 and 11 others - see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 February 2019

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

In the case of Czebe 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 31 January 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. Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

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 . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

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 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.

III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11. Some applicants submitted another complaint which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Conv ention, given the relevant well ‑ established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founde d 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 Article 13 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazsó v. Hungary ( cited above, § 21) .

IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12. In application no. 72114/13, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings, in particular, the principle of “equality of arms”.

13. Given that the Kúria has meanwhile repeated the proceedings in question in a manner that was in full compliance with the requirements of adversarial procedure, the Court is satisfied that the applicants can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this connection. This complaint therefore does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of application no. 72114/13 must be reje cted in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. 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 complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court , as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 72114/13 inadmissible;

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

4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5 Holds

(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 21 February 2019 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Georges Ravarani Acting D eputy 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 /

Date of registration

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]

72114/13

12/11/2013

(9 applicants)

Ágnes Tünde CZEBE

23/05/1974

Erika KIRÁLY

20/01/1981

Csaba KOVÁCS

21/04/1972

Tamás MEDVE

31/08/1981

Kinga NAGY

26/01/1973

Edit REIZER

13/08/1962

Anett SIPOS

25/01/1978

Ferenc SIPOS

09/04/1953

Katalin VAJDÁNÉ PALLAGA

24/11/1953

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

18/07/2007

30/01/2015

7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

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

2,600

57417/14

07/08/2014

(4 applicants)

Béláné FEGYVERES

23/08/1958

László KÖRTVÉLYESI

27/06/1957

Ferenc SIKENTÁNCZ

20/05/1963

Ágnes Mária LASKOVICSNÉ KATONA

31/05/1966

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

18/07/2007

30/01/2015

7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

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

3,400

66795/14

03/10/2014

Marianna SZAPPANOS

28/12/1965

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

30/04/2008

02/07/2014

6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

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

1,000

17339/15

04/04/2015

RL FINANCE KFT

31/10/1993

Székely Marianna

Budapest

23/04/2001

11/09/2014

13 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 20 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

6,400

22973/16

12/04/2016

(59 applicants)

László GULYÁS

17/07/1957

Tibor BENEDEK

16/01/1970

György József BONDI

01/03/1975

Ferenc BOZOKI

15/11/1968

Tibor CSAKI

17/05/1954

Viktor CSEPREGI

04/04/1974

Bela Zoltan CSEVE

27/10/1957

Gabor CSOMAR

12/12/1980

Janos DALLOS

31/12/1973

Andras ELLENBACHER

24/03/1957

Csaba ELLENBACHER

01/07/1983

Tibor Antal EPERJESI

06/05/1957

Attila ERDOS

22/11/1967

Zsolt EROS

06/04/1974

Laszlo FORGO

30/08/1976

Istvan FUTYU

03/03/1956

Ferenc GANGHAMMER

10/01/1980

Andras GELENCSER

19/04/1951

Csaba GELLER

12/08/1968

Nandor Gabor GELLER

16/12/1955

Krisztian GODOLLEI

09/08/1980

Gyorgy GREGUS

16/01/1975

Janos HANYIK

22/12/1955

Gabor HIDVEGI

23/01/1968

Erno JOO

05/03/1970

Dezso KALCSO

16/10/1963

Janos KARANCSI

22/11/1947

Ferenc KARLECZ

07/06/1950

Kalman KELE

23/08/1968

Zsolt KEMENCZEI

31/12/1973

Ferenc KENESSEY

13/01/1966

Csaba Antal KERLANG

12/02/1959

Gabor KIRALY

23/11/1963

Zoltan KIS

17/06/1976

Balazs KISS

14/08/1979

Laszlo Janos KISS

13/10/1960

Janos KOMLOS

17/03/1970

Karoly KOVACS

12/02/1953

Krisztian KOVACS

16/09/1974

Mihaly MESZAROS

12/08/1951

Istvan MOLNAR

24/11/1972

Miklos MOSKOVICS

11/05/1957

Peter Pal NEMETH

28/08/1958

Zoltan NEMETH

01/04/1974

Miklos NYERGES

10/09/1968

Gyula PALLAGI

13/08/1958

Karoly PAP

28/06/1969

Pal PETKO

15/01/1978

Erno POCSI

28/02/1963

Tibor RAVASZ

18/12/1960

Tamas SANDOR

26/03/1975

Gabor Ferenc SZEGEDI

04/12/1971

Laszlo Attila SZILASSY

b : 25/03/1948

demised : 27/08/2017

Pursued by heir

Gabriella SZILASSY

Antal TOTH

27/03/1961

Laszlo TOTH-ANTAL

12/10/1962

Janos TUSKAN

29/09/1962

Andras VARGA

25/06/1948

Antal ZSIGA

21/02/1952

Imre MORICZ

03/08/1962

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

27/12/2006

13/02/2018

11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

3,300

75266/16

02/12/2016

György Pál JAKAB

21/04/1957

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

27/12/2006

13/02/2018

11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

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

3,300

31590/17

18/04/2017

Franco CARAFA

02/05/1955

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

06/04/2012

18/10/2016

4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 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 -

3,400

40035/17

23/05/2017

RISZA Építőipari Bt.

Balla-Faredin Márk

Pécs

31/12/2008

15/09/2016

7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

2,600

42990/17

03/06/2017

Beatrix Katalin SZABÓ

30/05/1961

09/10/2006

08/11/2016

10 year(s) and 1 month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

4,600

73419/17

06/10/2017

Irén WEISZNÉ SUTKA

09/03/1942

Lázár Dénes

Budapest

07/01/2013

11/04/2017

4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,600

7017/18

01/02/2018

Hunor Csaba ZOLTÁN

24/10/1970

Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke

Budapest

21/07/2011

03/08/2017

6 year(s) and 14 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction

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

1,000

7765/18

30/06/2015

Tibor TURI

17/11/1961

Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke

Budapest

24/01/2011

06/05/2015

4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,600

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