SECOND SECTION

CASE OF LÁSZLÓ KÁROLY v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 41571/07 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 October 2012

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

In the case of László Károly v. Hungary ,

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

Dragoljub Popović , President, András Sajó , Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 18 September 2012 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 41571/07) 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 László Károly (“the applicant”), on 19 September 2007 .

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

3 . On 5 May 2010 the application was communicated to the Government . In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges.

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest .

5 . On 29 December 1988 the applicant filed an action for the re-opening of proceedings concerning a property dispute before the Pest Central District Court. The case was then re-opened.

6 . Following numerous hearings and the suspension of the proceedings on account of the death of several respondents, the Szolnok District Court delivered judgment on 19 December 2006. This decision was upheld by the Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Regional Court on 3 April 2007. The applicant ’ s petition for review was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 11 January 2008.

THE LAW

7 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

8 . The Government contested that argument.

9 . The period to be taken into consideration began only on 5 November 1992, when the recognition by Hungary of the right of individual petition took effect. However, in assessing the reasonableness of the time that elapsed after that date, account must be taken of the state of proceedings at the time. The Court observes that the proceedings had already lasted three years and ten months on that date. The period in question ended on 11 January 2008 . It thus lasted fifteen years and two months for three levels of jurisdiction following ratification of the Convention . In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.

10 . 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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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.

11 . Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 3 ,000 euros (EUR) in respect of aggregate pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The Government accepted these claims. The Court thus awards him the sum in full.

12 . The applicant also claimed EUR 1,300 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court. The Government accepted the claim. The Court thus awards him the sum in full.

13 . The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 , the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate applicable at the date of settlement :

(i) EUR 3 ,000 ( three thousand euros) , plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage;

( ii) EUR 1,300 ( one thousand three hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant , in respect of costs and expenses;

(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 poin ts.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 October 2012 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

             Françoise Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović    Deputy Registrar President