SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KIS AND BOZA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 7097/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 April 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kis and Boza v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 7097/11) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Hungarian nationals, Mr Róbert Kis and Ms Laura Boza (“the applicants”), on 25 January 2011.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 7 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1959 and live in Budapest.
5. On 27 October 2003 the applicants started labour-law litigation concerning their resignation and its legal and pecuniary consequences. On 21 May 2009 the Budapest Labour Court gave judgment, partly finding for the plaintiffs. On appeal, on 9 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed part of the decision. On 18 January 2012 the Kúria upheld the second-instance decision.
THE LAW
6. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
7. The Government contested that argument.
8. The period to be taken into consideration began on 27 October 2003 and ended on 18 January 2012. It thus lasted almost eight years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
9. 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, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (Ruotolo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230-D).
10. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Frydlender, cited above).
11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. 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.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
12. The applicants also complained about the manner in which the courts handled their cases and about the decisions taken. They relied on Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court is satisfied that the applicants’ complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention rights invoked.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
13. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, each applicant claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) in non-pecuniary damages.
14. The Government contested the claims.
15. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards each applicant EUR 2,300 under that head.
16. The applicants made no costs claims.
17. 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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings 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 each applicant, within three months, EUR 2,300 (two thousand three hundred 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 applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley Naismith Helen Keller
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy