SECOND SECTION
CASE OF SZÉCHENYI v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 4153/10)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 February 2014
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Széchenyi v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 28 January 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 4153/10) 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, Ms Laura Széchenyi and Ms Eszter Széchenyi (“the applicants”), on 14 January 2010.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3. On 3 January 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicants were born in 1976 and 1977 respectively and live in Budapest.
5. On 28 June 2001 the applicants brought a real-estate action against their mother and grandmother. On 23 November 2006 a first-instance decision was given. On 12 June 2007 the appeal judgment was adopted. In November 2009 the Supreme Court’s decision on the applicants’ petition for review was served.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
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 28 June 2001 and ended in November 2009. It thus lasted about eight years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, the application must be declared admissible.
9. 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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
10. 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.
11. Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicants claimed, jointly, 8,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
12. The Government contested the claim.
13. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards them, jointly, EUR 3,200 under that head.
14. The applicants made no costs claim.
15. 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, within three months, to the applicants, jointly, EUR 3,200 (three thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(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 18 February 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Stanley NaismithNebojša Vučinić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy