58773/18;12844/19;12846/19;13821/19;13856/19;13860/19;14156/19;14167/19

FOURTH SECTION CASE OF TAKÁCS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 58773/18 and 7 others - see appended list)             JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 14 November 2019   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Takács and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,  Georges Ravarani,  Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 24 October 2019, 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. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.  The applicants complained 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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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 (see, in particular, Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013), the Court finds 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings; Holds (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 14 November 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Liv Tigerstedt  Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström 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 Date 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 (in euros)[1]     58773/18 07/12/2018 Krisztián Takács 25/03/1972 Visontai Csongor Budapest 24/07/2012   09/11/2018   6 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 17 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   3,300     12844/19 05/03/2019 Richárd Kiss 29/04/1984 Hatlaczki Gyula Nagykáta 18/03/2010   10/09/2018   8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   4,600     12846/19 05/03/2019 Tibor Pupos 11/05/1972 Hatlaczki Gyula Nagykáta 18/03/2010   10/09/2018   8 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   4,600     13821/19 05/03/2019 János Vidák 30/09/1987 Hatlaczki Gyula Nagykáta 18/03/2010   03/10/2018   8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   5,200     13856/19 05/03/2019 József Vidák 02/10/1989 Hatlaczki Gyula Nagykáta 18/03/2010   03/10/2018   8 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   5,200     13860/19 05/03/2019 Zoltán Nagy 29/12/1990 Hatlaczki Gyula Nagykáta 18/03/2010   21/01/2019   8 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 4 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   5,200     14156/19 08/03/2019 Attila Titkos 23/02/1970 Kanyó Péter Nagykáta 25/09/2008   13/09/2018   9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   6,500     14167/19 08/03/2019 Zsuzsánna Szarvas 11/11/1964 Kanyó Péter Nagykáta 16/09/2008   13/09/2018   9 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   6,500   [1].  Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.