FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KÉZDISZENTKERESZTI BÍRÓ v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 236/12)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kézdiszentkereszti Bíró v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 236/12) 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, Ms Éva Kézdiszentkereszti Bíró (“the applicant”), on 19 December 2011.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr Sz. Balsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent at the Ministry of Justice.
3. On 26 May 2015 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Budapest.
5. On 9 March 2006 the applicant submitted a request for an increase of her disability pension before the Budapest Governmental Authority (Directorate of Pension Insurance), which dismissed her claim on
21 August 2006. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision on
10 October 2006. The Central-Hungarian Regional Insurance Directorate acting as a second-instance authority upheld the first-instance decision on
4 January 2007.
6. The applicant sought the judicial review of the second-instance decision within the statutory time-limit. She submitted her statement of claim on 9 February 2007 to the first-instance administrative authority, in line with the applicable procedural laws.
7. In the absence of any developments in the case, the applicant notified the first-instance administrative authority about upholding her claim on 18 March 2010. The first-instance administrative authority subsequently forwarded the applicant’s statement of claim to the Budapest Labour Court on 20 July 2010.
8. The Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on 14 June 2011.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
10. The Government contested that argument.
11. The period to be taken into consideration began on 9 February 2007 when the applicant sought the judicial review of the administrative decision (see paragraph 6 above) and ended on 14 June 2011 when the first-instance court dismissed the applicant’s claim (see paragraph 8 above). It thus lasted more than four years and four months for one level of jurisdiction.
12. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible.
13. 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, mutatis mutandis, 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
14. The applicant claimed 3,300 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages combined.
15. The Government contested these claims as excessive.
16. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards the applicant EUR 2,000 under that head.
17. The applicant also claimed EUR 800 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
18. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
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, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 800 (eight hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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 18 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Andrea TamiettiVincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy