AFFAIRE JUHÁSZ ET AUTRES c. HONGRIE
Doc ref: 37026/21;47505/21;49223/21;51527/21;55039/21;56705/21;58682/21;58992/21;60141/21;2131/22 • ECHR ID: 001-219751
Document date: October 13, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 3
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF JUHÁSZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 37026/21 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 October 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Juhász and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President,
Erik Wennerström ,
Lorraine Schembri Orland , judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 September 2022,
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. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
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 criminal proceedings. In application no. 49233/21, the applicant also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII).
8. In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013 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 justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.
11. In application no. 49233/21, the applicant submitted further complaints under Articles 5 § 4 and 13 of the Convention, which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Bandur v. Hungary , no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016, and Barta and Drajkó , cited above, §§ 25-26.
12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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,
(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 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Krzysztof Wojtyczek Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
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]
37026/21
12/07/2021
István JUHÁSZ
1980Visontai Csongor
Budapest
25/03/2016
pending
More than 6 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 7 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,700
47505/21
08/09/2021
Etelka GÁSPÁR
1975Cseterics Krisztián
Budapest
15/12/2013
10/06/2021
7 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 27 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,900
49223/21
16/09/2021
Oszkár BALOGH
1980Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
09/11/2017
13/05/2022
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 5 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention. Several appeals and reviews of detention were significantly delayed.
3,400
51527/21
29/09/2021
Klaudia DANÓ
1984Csugányné Lakatos Csilla
Miskolc
10/04/2014
24/08/2021
7 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 15 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,900
55039/21
14/10/2021
Péter HEGYI
1990Szabó Gábor
Göd
04/11/2016
15/04/2021
4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 12 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,600
56705/21
10/11/2021
Zsuzsanna KÁRPÁTI
1961Molnár Lajos
Budapest
24/07/2012
25/05/2021
8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,200
58682/21
26/11/2021
Alfréd OLÁH
1971Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
20/09/2016
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 12 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,700
58992/21
29/11/2021
Gyula VÁRI
1967Molnár Lajos
Budapest
24/06/2012
25/05/2021
8 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 2 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
5,200
60141/21
26/11/2021
Tibor POLYÁK
1983Bihari István
Budapest
04/05/2010
pending
More than 12 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 28 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
8,200
2131/22
10/12/2021
Zsolt SZÉKELY
1972Patócs Ilona
Tapolca
25/05/2016
08/10/2021
5 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.