FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF CZEBE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 72114/13 and 11 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 February 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Czebe and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 January 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. Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).
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 civil proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. 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.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
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 persuading it to reach a different conclusion on 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.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted another complaint which also raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well‑established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazsó v. Hungary (cited above, § 21).
IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 72114/13, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings, in particular, the principle of “equality of arms”.
13. Given that the Kúria has meanwhile repeated the proceedings in question in a manner that was in full compliance with the requirements of adversarial procedure, the Court is satisfied that the applicants can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this connection. This complaint therefore does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of application no. 72114/13 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14. 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.”
15. 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.
16. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application no. 72114/13 inadmissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
5 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 21 February 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth /
Date of registration
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]
72114/13
12/11/2013
(9 applicants)
Ágnes Tünde CZEBE
23/05/1974
Erika KIRÁLY
20/01/1981
Csaba KOVÁCS
21/04/1972
Tamás MEDVE
31/08/1981
Kinga NAGY
26/01/1973
Edit REIZER
13/08/1962
Anett SIPOS
25/01/1978
Ferenc SIPOS
09/04/1953
Katalin VAJDÁNÉ PALLAGA
24/11/1953
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/07/2007
30/01/2015
7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings -
2,600
57417/14
07/08/2014
(4 applicants)
Béláné FEGYVERES
23/08/1958
László KÖRTVÉLYESI
27/06/1957
Ferenc SIKENTÁNCZ
20/05/1963
Ágnes Mária LASKOVICSNÉ KATONA
31/05/1966
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/07/2007
30/01/2015
7 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
3,400
66795/14
03/10/2014
Marianna SZAPPANOS
28/12/1965
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
30/04/2008
02/07/2014
6 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
1,000
17339/15
04/04/2015
RL FINANCE KFT
31/10/1993
Székely Marianna
Budapest
23/04/2001
11/09/2014
13 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 20 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
6,400
22973/16
12/04/2016
(59 applicants)
László GULYÁS
17/07/1957
Tibor BENEDEK
16/01/1970
György József BONDI
01/03/1975
Ferenc BOZOKI
15/11/1968
Tibor CSAKI
17/05/1954
Viktor CSEPREGI
04/04/1974
Bela Zoltan CSEVE
27/10/1957
Gabor CSOMAR
12/12/1980
Janos DALLOS
31/12/1973
Andras ELLENBACHER
24/03/1957
Csaba ELLENBACHER
01/07/1983
Tibor Antal EPERJESI
06/05/1957
Attila ERDOS
22/11/1967
Zsolt EROS
06/04/1974
Laszlo FORGO
30/08/1976
Istvan FUTYU
03/03/1956
Ferenc GANGHAMMER
10/01/1980
Andras GELENCSER
19/04/1951
Csaba GELLER
12/08/1968
Nandor Gabor GELLER
16/12/1955
Krisztian GODOLLEI
09/08/1980
Gyorgy GREGUS
16/01/1975
Janos HANYIK
22/12/1955
Gabor HIDVEGI
23/01/1968
Erno JOO
05/03/1970
Dezso KALCSO
16/10/1963
Janos KARANCSI
22/11/1947
Ferenc KARLECZ
07/06/1950
Kalman KELE
23/08/1968
Zsolt KEMENCZEI
31/12/1973
Ferenc KENESSEY
13/01/1966
Csaba Antal KERLANG
12/02/1959
Gabor KIRALY
23/11/1963
Zoltan KIS
17/06/1976
Balazs KISS
14/08/1979
Laszlo Janos KISS
13/10/1960
Janos KOMLOS
17/03/1970
Karoly KOVACS
12/02/1953
Krisztian KOVACS
16/09/1974
Mihaly MESZAROS
12/08/1951
Istvan MOLNAR
24/11/1972
Miklos MOSKOVICS
11/05/1957
Peter Pal NEMETH
28/08/1958
Zoltan NEMETH
01/04/1974
Miklos NYERGES
10/09/1968
Gyula PALLAGI
13/08/1958
Karoly PAP
28/06/1969
Pal PETKO
15/01/1978
Erno POCSI
28/02/1963
Tibor RAVASZ
18/12/1960
Tamas SANDOR
26/03/1975
Gabor Ferenc SZEGEDI
04/12/1971
Laszlo Attila SZILASSY
b: 25/03/1948
demised: 27/08/2017
Pursued by heir
Gabriella SZILASSY
Antal TOTH
27/03/1961
Laszlo TOTH-ANTAL
12/10/1962
Janos TUSKAN
29/09/1962
Andras VARGA
25/06/1948
Antal ZSIGA
21/02/1952
Imre MORICZ
03/08/1962
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/12/2006
13/02/2018
11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,300
75266/16
02/12/2016
György Pál JAKAB
21/04/1957
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
27/12/2006
13/02/2018
11 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 18 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings
3,300
31590/17
18/04/2017
Franco CARAFA
02/05/1955
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
06/04/2012
18/10/2016
4 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings -
3,400
40035/17
23/05/2017
RISZA Építőipari Bt.
Balla-Faredin Márk
Pécs
31/12/2008
15/09/2016
7 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 16 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
2,600
42990/17
03/06/2017
Beatrix Katalin SZABÓ
30/05/1961
09/10/2006
08/11/2016
10 year(s) and 1 month(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
4,600
73419/17
06/10/2017
Irén WEISZNÉ SUTKA
09/03/1942
Lázár Dénes
Budapest
07/01/2013
11/04/2017
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,600
7017/18
01/02/2018
Hunor Csaba ZOLTÁN
24/10/1970
Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke
Budapest
21/07/2011
03/08/2017
6 year(s) and 14 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings -
1,000
7765/18
30/06/2015
Tibor TURI
17/11/1961
Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke
Budapest
24/01/2011
06/05/2015
4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 13 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
1,600
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy