SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MENYHÁRT v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 25648/06 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 July 2008

FINAL

22/10/2008

This judgment may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Menyhárt v. Hungary ,

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

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Danutė Jočienė , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , Işıl Karakaş , judges, and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 1 July 2008 ,

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

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 25648/06) 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 Menyhárt (“the applicant”), on 14 June 2006 .

2 . The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl , Agent , Ministry of Justice and L aw Enforcement .

3 . On 13 February 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government . I t also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3) .

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Debrecen .

5 . In a labour-law dispute, o n 18 October 1996 the applicant brought an action in compensation against the Hungarian Railways Company .

6 . The Budapest Labour Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. O n 11 December 2003 it adopted an interim judgment accepting the applicant ’ s entitlement to compensation. On 27 August 2004 the Budapest Regional Court rejected the Railways ’ appeal.

7 . On 24 February 2005 the Labour Court granted the applicant compensation under various heads. On appeal, on 14 June 2006 the Regional Court amended this decision.

THE LAW

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

8 . The applicant complained that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonabl y long time. He relied on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention alone , which reads as relevant :

“ In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal... ”

9 . The Government contested that argument.

10 . The period to be taken into consideration began on 18 October 1996 and ended on 14 June 2006. It thus lasted almost nine years and eight months for two level s of jurisdiction .

A. Admissibility

11 . The Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

B. Merits

12 . 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 and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

13 . 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 , cited above).

14 . 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 finds 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.

II . APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15 . 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 rep ara tion to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

A. Damage

16 . The applicant claimed 10 million Hungarian forints [1] in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

17 . The Government co ntested the claim .

18 . The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards him EUR 6,400 euros under that head.

B. Costs and expenses

19 . The applicant made no costs claim .

C. Default interest

20 . 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 from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 6,400 ( six thousand four hundred euros) , plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage , to be converted into Hungarian forints at the rate appli cable at the date of settlement ;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall b e 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 points;

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

Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 July 2008 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President

[1] 40,450 euros (EUR)