FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KODELA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 30000/21 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 September 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kodela and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,
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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 CONVENTION6. The applicants complained principally 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 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.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Barta and Drajkó (cited above, §§ 25-26).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12. 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.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court finds it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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 that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);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 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Krzysztof Wojtyczek
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
Year of birth/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]
30000/21
01/06/2021
László KODELA
1957
Kodela Viktor
Budapest
10/10/2012
16/09/2021
8 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 7 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,900
39120/21
26/07/2021
VASS CONSULTING KFT
2002
11/02/2010
pending
More than 12 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 5 day(s) 4 level(s) of jurisdiction
3,900
42915/21
16/08/2021
László TÓTH
1964
Bieber Ivóna
Budapest
24/01/2006
pending
More than 16 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 23 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
10,000
50967/21
04/10/2021
György WÉHMAN
1986
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
29/05/2018
15/02/2022
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 18 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
2,600
51057/21
01/10/2021
Attila NÉMETH
1978
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
31/07/2018
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
1,600
53009/21
19/10/2021
Elemér Kálmán KISS
1944
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
26/05/2014
16/09/2021
7 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 22 day(s)
3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
2,000
54980/21
11/10/2021
Ferenc ARNOLD
1971
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
10/05/2018
pending
More than 4 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 6 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
2,600
58686/21
26/11/2021
Tibor Zoltán MALKOVICS
1967
Bihari István
Budapest
04/05/2010
pending
More than 12 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
8,200
59358/21
18/11/2021
Norbert László HEVÉR
1982
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
16/10/2018
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
2,600
60142/21
26/11/2021
Éva NYIRÁN
1984
Bihari István
Budapest
04/05/2010
pending
More than 12 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 12 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
8,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.