CASE OF WÁGNER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF WÁGNER AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Applications nos. 15152/23 and 9 others – see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

14 March 2024

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Wágner and Others v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Gilberto Felici, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,

and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 February 2024,

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

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

6.  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 because of the excessive length of criminal proceedings.

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.

11.  Some applicants submitted other complaints which also 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).

12.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

(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 14 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Attila Teplán Gilberto Felici
 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

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]

15152/23

31/03/2023

Milán WÁGNER

1971

Kiss Dániel Bálint

Budapest

23/03/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 26 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

2,300

17103/23

17/04/2023

György DÁVID

1981

Kiss Dániel Bálint

Budapest

16/11/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 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

17123/23

14/04/2023

Róbert VÁRTÁS

1999

Kiss Dániel Bálint

Budapest

21/01/2020

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 3 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

17425/23

18/04/2023

(10 applicants)

Zoltán BARÁTH

1965

Jenő LAVNER

1972

Krisztián MÁLITS

1972

Balázs Ferenc NELHIBEL

1959

László Géza NELHIBEL

1962

János PAP

1958

Tamás Ferenc PLUTZER

1968

Tibor SZŐKE

1962

Attila TÓTH

1972

Károly Dusán VILLÁNYI-KOLLÁR

1975

Borsos Tamás

Budapest

24/10/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings

1,100

18386/23

24/04/2023

Viktória SEBESTYÉN

1985

Kiss Dalma

Budapest

25/10/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s)

1 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,800

18405/23

23/04/2023

Ildikó KÁROLYFALVI

1970

Cseterics Krisztián

Budapest

28/04/2010

pending

More than 13 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 19 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

8,200

20799/23

16/05/2023

Zoltán SERES

1985

Kiss Dalma

Budapest

10/09/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,600

22091/23

16/05/2023

Béláné SERES

1956

Kiss Dalma

Budapest

10/09/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,600

22092/23

16/05/2023

Anikó SERESNÉ SZUCSICS

1986

Kiss Dalma

Budapest

10/09/2019

pending

More than 4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 14 day(s)

2 level(s) of jurisdiction

1,600

24772/23

12/06/2023

Zsolt ORGOVÁN

1990

Szabó Gábor

Göd

Proceedings no. 1

01/10/2019

Proceedings no. 2

22/11/2019

Proceedings no. 1

pending

Proceedings no. 2

pending

Proceedings no. 1

More than 4 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 23 day(s)

1 level(s) of jurisdiction

Proceedings no. 2

More than 4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 2 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

3,400

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.