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 JUHÁSZ-BUDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 3189/14;9269/14;14955/14;17949/14;19446/14;39007/14 • ECHR ID: 001-187575
Document date: November 15, 2018
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
CASE OF JUHÁSZ-BUDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 3189/14;9269/14;14955/14;17949/14;19446/14;39007/14 • ECHR ID: 001-187575
Document date: November 15, 2018
Cited paragraphs only
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF JUHÁSZ-BUDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
( Application no. 3189/14 and 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 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
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.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
