Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF PÓCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 13353/21 • ECHR ID: 001-214789

Document date: January 13, 2022

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

CASE OF PÓCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

Doc ref: 13353/21 • ECHR ID: 001-214789

Document date: January 13, 2022

Cited paragraphs only

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF PÓCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 13353/21)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 January 2022

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

In the case of Pócza and Others v. Hungary,

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

Erik Wennerström, President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 March 2021.

2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

3. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.

THE LAW

6. The applicants complained principally 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 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. The applicant Ms Ilona Balázsné Pagács also complained that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. However, the Court observes that the same applicant has already made an identical complaint in application no. 390/21. In these circumstances, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 35 of the Convention.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

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 considers 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 amount 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 amount 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 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth/registration

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 /household

(in euros) [1]

13353/21

01/03/2021

(72 applicants)

Gyula PÓCZA

1928Janos AUTH

1934BAJAI KOMMUNÁLIS KFT.

2009Éva BALÁZS

1969Lászlóné BALÁZS

1944Péter Gyula BALÁZS

1968Gábor László BÁSTI

1935István BIHARI

1944Mihály BODA

1955Andrásné BODNÁR

1941Ferencné BUZÁS

1952László CSIZMADIA

1950Mónika CSIZMADIA

1971András EREDICS

1955Imre ERŐSS

1965Mária FISCHERNÉ ERŐS

1960Jenő FORGÓ

1939László Gyula FRIGY

1967Miklós GARTNER

1958Istvánné GYÖRE

1960Antal HAKLITS

1948Gábor HAVAS

1953Róbert István HÉJJA

1966Dezső HŐBE

1924János HORVÁTH

1951Miklós HORVÁTH

1940Erzsébet Mária KÁNTORNÉ SZABÓ

1955Artúr KASOVITZ

1924Lajosné KELEMEN

1964Eszter KÖRTVÉLYESI

1946Miklós LACZI

1947József Istvánné LAJKÓ

1957Gyula LEGLER

1947József LEGLER

1957Sándor Jánosné LEHOCZKI

1930Éva LESZLAUERNÉ SIKOS

1954László MAGOSI

1946Frigyes MORVAY

1936Károly Ferenc NADRAI

1951Csaba NAGY

1944János NAGY

1950Géza Istvánné PÁLYKA

1937István Géza PÁLYKA

1960László Zzoltné PÁVICS

1959László Gábor PIROSKA

1955József POZSGAI

1938Antal Sándor RENDES

1950Ferenc ROHRBACHER

1966Gézáné SCHÉDER

1930Józsefné SEBESTYÉN

1947László SEFCSIK

1952Gyula SIKOS

1956Lajos SÃœMEGHI

1950Miklós SZABÓ

1948István SZAPPANOS

1939Csaba SZELTNER

1966SZOMBATHELYI COOP ZRT.

2007László TÓTH

1951Györgyi Csilla TÖTH

1961Zoltán ZÁBORSZKY

1952Bernadett ZÁMBÓNÉ ÁGOSTON

1978Household

Béla GERGELY

1968Anna GERGELYNÉ PÁPISTA

1968Household

Klára Erzsébet RÁCZ-SZABÓNÉ

1993Anna Mária SZABÓ

2010Csaba Zsolt SZABÓ

1994Gergely András SZABÓ

1997Mária SZABÓNÉ TAKÁCS

1967Household

Gábor Ernő MIHÁCSI

1951Gáborné MIHÁCSI

1953Household

Anna KIS

1966Hanna TICK

1988Barbalics István

Budapest

05/11/1992

pending

More than 29 year(s) and 5 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

9,100

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant