FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KANDA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 53421/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
26 April 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kanda v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 22 March 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 53421/11) 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 national, Mr László Kanda (“the applicant”), on 17 August 2011.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice.
3. On 25 June 2015 the complaints concerning the length of the proceedings and the lack of remedies in that respect were 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 was born in 1953 and lives in Hajdúnánás. He is a shareholder of a limited liability company registered under Hungarian law, with its seat in Hajdúnánás.
5. On 10 October 2001 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court ordered the liquidation of the company. On 23 December 2005 the first instance court declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed the judgment.
6. The first-instance court re-heard the case and on 5 June 2009 it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company. On appeal, the Debrecen Court of Appeal quashed the judgment on 2 March 2010.
7. The first-instance court re-heard the case and on 12 February 2013 it declared the liquidation proceedings terminated and ordered the dissolution of the company. The decision of the court became final on 27 March 2013.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
8. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
9. The period to be taken into consideration began on 10 October 2001 and ended on 27 March 2013. It thus lasted about 11 years and 6 months for two levels of jurisdiction.
10. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible.
11. 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
12. The applicant also complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings were not fair. The Court considers that there is no appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
13. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to be awarded in line with the Court’s case-law in Hungarian length-of-proceedings cases.
14. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him 6,000 euros (EUR) under that head.
15. The applicant made no costs claim.
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. Declares the length complaint admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
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 6,000 (six thousand 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 26 April 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque
Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy