CASE OF BARKÓCZI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 7827/23;11448/23;14147/23;15915/23;19252/23;22512/23;24646/23;25257/23 • ECHR ID: 001-231116
Document date: February 22, 2024
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 2
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BARKÓCZI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 7827/23 and 7 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 February 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Barkóczi and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gilberto Felici , President , Péter Paczolay, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 February 2023,
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 Conventionâ€) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Governmentâ€) 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. Some applicants 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...â€
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 found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in relation to the length of criminal proceedings.
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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, 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 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.â€
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Barta and Drajkó, cited above), the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
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 22 February 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Gilberto Felici 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]
7827/23
30/01/2023
Judit BARKÓCZI
1973
Kiss Dalma
Budapest
12/01/2020
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 6 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,600
11448/23
07/03/2023
Brigitta Anna SCHEIKNÉ BÃRDI
1978
N. Tóth Máté
Budapest
29/04/2014
pending
More than 9 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,600
14147/23
23/03/2023
Csaba János WEINHARDT
1976
Finta Eszter Klára
Budapest
20/06/2018
pending
More than 5 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 29 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,300
15915/23
06/04/2023
László MAGYAR
1957
Finta Eszter Klára
Budapest
23/06/2016
pending
More than 7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 26 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,600
19252/23
20/04/2023
Lajos JÓNÃS
1974
Cseterics Krisztián
Budapest
04/08/2010
20/01/2023
12 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 17 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,400
22512/23
26/05/2023
LÃvia LAKATOS
1984
Zsigmond György
Budapest
30/06/2010
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 19 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings -
6,500
24646/23
30/05/2023
Zsanett ALGÃCS
1987
Zsigmond György
Budapest
13/04/2010
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 5 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings -
6,500
25257/23
02/06/2023
Csaba Laszlo HUIBER
1963
Zsigmond György
Budapest
01/07/2010
pending
More than 13 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 17 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings -
6,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.