24710/11

FOURTH SECTION               CASE OF MULTIPROJEKT KFT v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 24710/11)                   JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   15 March 2016             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Multiprojekt Kft v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,  Krzysztof Wojtyczek,  Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 23 February 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an application (no. 24710/11) against 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 company, Multiprojekt Kft (“the applicant”), on 15 April 2011. 2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3.  On 25 March 2015 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.  The applicant is a limited liability company registered under Hungarian law, with its seat in Budapest. 5.  On 24 November 1998 the applicant initiated a civil lawsuit against two companies requesting the court to declare invalid a real estate sale and purchase agreement concluded between these two companies. 6.  The Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 26 February 2004. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on 5 November 2004. 7.  The first-instance court re-heard the case and dismissed the applicant’s claim on 13 October 2005. On appeal, the second-instance court upheld the judgment on 9 November 2006. The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court which quashed it on 13 September 2007. 8.  In the resumed proceedings the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed, on 20 March 2008, the first-instance court’s judgment. 9.  On 18 March 2009 the Budapest Regional Court as first‑instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the judgment on 17 December 2009. The applicant challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court but to no avail. The Supreme Court upheld the final and binding judgment on 13 September 2010 (served on 27 October 2010). THE LAW I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 10.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11.  The Government contested that argument. 12.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 24 November 1998 and ended on 13 September 2010. It thus lasted eleven years, nine months and twenty days for three levels of jurisdiction. 13.  In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible. 14.  Having examined all the material submitted to it and 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 (see Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 17, 16 July 2015). There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 15.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 1,500,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages combined. 16.  The Government contested these claims as excessive. 17.  The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non‑pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant EUR 5,400 under that head. 18.  The applicant made no costs claim. It is therefore not necessary to adopt a decision on the matter. 19.  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, 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, EUR 5,400 (five thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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;   4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 March 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Fatoş Aracı Vincent A. De Gaetano Deputy Registrar President