FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF TEMESFŐI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 43355/11)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 October 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Temesfői and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) sitting as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Marko Bošnjak, 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. 43355/11) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by eight Hungarian nationals, Mr Béla Temesfői, Mr Zoltán Csepi, Mr József Molnár, Mr Tibor Kovács, Mr Attila Fekete, Mr Flórián Márton, Mr József Kelemen and Mr István Dudás (“the applicants”), on 12 July 2011.
2. The applicants were represented by Mr T. Borsos, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent at the Ministry of Justice.
3. On 25 June 2015 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The first applicant, Mr Béla Temesfői was born in 1979 and lives in Gödöllő. The second applicant, Mr Zoltán Csepi was born in 1971 and lives in Gödöllő. The third applicant, Mr József Molnár was born in 1971 and lives in Gödöllő. The fourth applicant, Mr Tibor Kovács was born in 1972 and lives in Budapest. The fifth applicant, Mr Attila Fekete was born in 1968 and lives in Veresegyház. The sixth applicant, Mr Flórián Márton was born in 1973 and lives in Szada. The seventh applicant, Mr József Kelemen was born in 1980 and lives in Gödöllő. The eighth applicant, Mr István Dudás was born in 1975 and lives in Gödöllő.
5. The applicants were heard as suspects on different dates (the first applicant on 5 July 2002, the second applicant on 3 October 2001, the third and fourth applicants on 9 October 2001, the fifth applicant on 4 October 2001, the sixth applicant on 18 March 2002, the seventh applicant on 27 December 2000 and the eighth applicant on 21 December 2000).
6. The Budapest Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment with the Budapest Central Districts Court on 30 June 2003 charging the applicants with fraud and forgery. On 18 May 2011 the Budapest Central Districts Court found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to different punishments (applied reprimands for the first applicant, criminal fine for the second, seventh and eighth applicants and one-year probation for the third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants).
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
7. The applicants complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
8. The Government contested that argument.
9. In respect of the first applicant, the period to be taken into consideration began on 5 July 2002 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted more than eight years and ten months for one level of jurisdiction.
10. In respect of the second applicant, the period to be taken into consideration began on 3 October 2001 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted more than nine years and seven months for one level of jurisdiction.
11. In respect of the third and fourth applicants, the period to be taken into consideration began on 9 October 2001 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted more than nine years and seven months for one level of jurisdiction.
12. In respect of the fifth applicant, the period to be taken into consideration began on 4 October 2001 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted more than nine years and seven months for one level of jurisdiction.
13. In respect of the sixth applicant, the period to be taken into consideration began on 18 March 2002 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted nine years and two months for one level of jurisdiction.
14. In respect of the seventh applicant, the period to be taken into consideration began on 27 December 2000 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted more than ten years and four months for one level of jurisdiction.
15. In respect of the eighth applicant, the period to be taken into consideration began on 21 December 2000 and ended on 18 May 2011. It thus lasted more than ten years and four months for one level of jurisdiction.
16. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible.
17. Having examined all the material submitted to it – on the basis of which the Court notes, in particular, that the applicants have not been shown to have caused any particular delay to the proceedings – 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, Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, § 38, 17 December 2013).
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
18. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the first, second, third, fourth and fifth applicants claimed 10,000 euros (EUR) each; the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants claimed EUR 12,500 each.
19. The Government contested these claims.
20. The Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards the first and sixth applicants EUR 6,000 each and the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and eighth applicants EUR 7,000 each under that head.
21. The applicants also claimed the reimbursement of their costs and expenses incurred before the Court in the amount of EUR 1,500 in respect of each applicant.
22. The Government contested the claim.
23. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 150 in respect of each applicant covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.
24. 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, the following amounts to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) to the first applicant, Mr Béla Temesfői, EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses;
(ii) to the second applicant, Mr Zoltán Csepi, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses;
(iii) to the third applicant, Mr József Molnár, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses;
(iv) to the fourth applicant, Mr Tibor Kovács, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses;
(v) to the fifth applicant, Mr Attila Fekete, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses;
(vi) to the sixth applicant, Mr Flórián Márton, EUR 6,000 (six thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses;
(vii) to the seventh applicant, Mr József Kelemen, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant in respect of costs and expenses; and
(viii) to the eighth applicant, Mr István Dudás, EUR 7,000 (seven thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 (one hundred fifty 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 amounts 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 October 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Andrea TamiettiNona Tsotsoria
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy