390/21

FIRST SECTION CASE OF RONTÓNÉ SZÉP AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 390/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 January 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Rontóné Szép 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 5 December 2020. 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 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  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.” 12.  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. 13.  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, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; Holds (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   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] 390/21 05/12/2020 (75 applicants) Ágnes RONTÓNÉ SZÉP Lászlóné BAJI Ilona BALÁZSNÉ PAGÁCS Géza Károly BIEDER Lajosné BOROS József BRETUS József BUKTA Magdolna CSAPLÁR István CSŐVÁRI Pálné CZICZKA Katalin DANKÁNÉ LENTE Gézáné DÉNES Rezső DÉNES Vince DÉNES András DURST Józsefné EGRI Gergely FAHIDI Vilmos FARKAS Péter GESZTESI-GROSS László GÖNDÖR Jenő GYŐRFI András HÓDOS Ferenc HUSZÁR László IVÁNYI Ágnes KÁLDY-NAGY János KALUHA Jánosné KASTÉLY Ramóna KAZINCZKI József KENESEI Antal KEREKES János KIS Lajosné KISS József KOMPANIK István József KOPIK Géza KORMOS Józsefné KOVÁCS Ottóné KOVÁCS Marianna Ilona KUNYIKNÉ JÁRÓ József KURUSA József LAJKÓ Ádám LÁNG Albert LOVAS Miklós LUKÁCS Tiborné MARKOS Klára MÁTÉ Sándor MIHICS István MIKÓ Ferenc MÓZER Ferenc NAGY Sándor NEMES Károlyné NÉMETH István PALKOVICS Jánosné PÉK   Ferenc PÉLI Ferencné PETHŐ Ferenc PSZOTA Imréné RÁBA Sándorné ROHOSKA Sándor István RUTTKAI László STARK Sándorné SZABÓ József SZÉP Julianna SZIRÁKINÉ SZÉP Gizella SZŐKE Lászlóné TIHANYI László TÓTH János UNYI   Household Zoltán GÁL Zoltánné GÁL   Household Ferenc RÉVAI Ferencné RÉVAI   Household József LÖFFER Veronika LÖFFER   Household Erika NÉMETH Piroska NÉMETH Barbalics 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.