FIRST SECTION
CASE OF RONTÓNÉ SZÉP AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 390/21)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13 January 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rontóné Szép and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 5 December 2020.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
3. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained 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 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.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. 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.”
12. 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.
13. 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,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that this application disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount 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 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 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per
applicant /household
(in euros)[1]
390/21
05/12/2020
(75 applicants)
Ágnes RONTÓNÉ SZÉP
1952
Lászlóné BAJI
1940
Ilona BALÁZSNÉ PAGÁCS
1949
Géza Károly BIEDER
1950
Lajosné BOROS
1959
József BRETUS
1944
József BUKTA
1942
Magdolna CSAPLÁR
1944
István CSŐVÁRI
1954
Pálné CZICZKA
1954
Katalin DANKÁNÉ LENTE
1955
Gézáné DÉNES
1948
Rezső DÉNES
1954
Vince DÉNES
1962
András DURST
1958
Józsefné EGRI
1952
Gergely FAHIDI
1962
Vilmos FARKAS
1934
Péter GESZTESI-GROSS
1960
László GÖNDÖR
1941
Jenő GYŐRFI
1946
András HÓDOS
1951
Ferenc HUSZÁR
1941
László IVÁNYI
1945
Ágnes KÁLDY-NAGY
1956
János KALUHA
1950
Jánosné KASTÉLY
1926
Ramóna KAZINCZKI
1976
József KENESEI
1964
Antal KEREKES
1939
János KIS
1951
Lajosné KISS
1935
József KOMPANIK
1945
István József KOPIK
1944
Géza KORMOS
1959
Józsefné KOVÁCS
1931
Ottóné KOVÁCS
1933
Marianna Ilona KUNYIKNÉ JÁRÓ
1955
József KURUSA
1939
József LAJKÓ
1950
Ádám LÁNG
1954
Albert LOVAS
1949
Miklós LUKÁCS
1949
Tiborné MARKOS
1949
Klára MÁTÉ
1968
Sándor MIHICS
1956
István MIKÓ
1968
Ferenc MÓZER
1942
Ferenc NAGY
1949
Sándor NEMES
1962
Károlyné NÉMETH
1953
István PALKOVICS
1956
Jánosné PÉK
1941
Ferenc PÉLI
1959
Ferencné PETHŐ
1956
Ferenc PSZOTA
1955
Imréné RÁBA
1938
Sándorné ROHOSKA
1948
Sándor István RUTTKAI
1947
László STARK
1942
Sándorné SZABÓ
1948
József SZÉP
1953
Julianna SZIRÁKINÉ SZÉP
1952
Gizella SZŐKE
1957
Lászlóné TIHANYI
1942
László TÓTH
1946
János UNYI
1951
Household
Zoltán GÁL
1942
Zoltánné GÁL
1949
Household
Ferenc RÉVAI
1952
Ferencné RÉVAI
1952
Household
József LÖFFER
1933
Veronika LÖFFER
1937
Household
Erika NÉMETH
1961
Piroska NÉMETH
1967
Barbalics István
Budapest
05/11/1992
pending
More than 29 year(s) and 5 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
9,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.