SECOND SECTION

CASE OF RAKSSÁNYI v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 40478/10 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

25 March 2014

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

In the case of Rakssányi v. Hungary ,

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

Helen Keller, President, András Sajó , Egidijus Kūris , judges , and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 4 March 2014 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 40478/10 ) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr Csaba Rakssányi (“the applicant”), on 14 July 2010 .

2 . The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi , Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.

3 . On 5 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government .

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Hévíz .

5 . It appears that in 2001 an action was brought against the applicant before the Keszthely District Court. The plaintiff sought the payment of some outstanding fees.

6 . After a first- and a second-instance judgment, on 20 January 2011 the Supreme Court gave final decision in the case.

THE LAW

7 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” r equirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention . He also relied on Articles 10 and 14 of the Convention, without further developing these complaints.

8 . The Government contested that argument.

9 . The period to be taken into consideration began i n 200 1 and ended in January 2011 . It thus lasted about ten years for three level s of jurisdiction .

10 . In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.

11 . The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII) .

12 . Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances . Having regard to its case -law on the subject, the Court considers that the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.

13 . Relying on Article 41 of the Convention , the applicant claimed 8.9 million Hungarian forints in respect of non-pecuniary damage (approximately 29,500 euros (EUR)).

14 . The Government co ntested the claim.

15 . The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity , it awards him EUR 3,600 under that head.

16 . The applicant made no costs claim.

17 . 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. Declares the application admissible;

2 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3 . Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant , within three months, EUR 3,600 (three thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable , in respect of non-pecuniary damage , 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 amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage poin ts;

4 . Dismisse s the remainder of the applicant ’ s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 March 2014 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stanley Naismith Helen Keller Registrar President