CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 18 février 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s2993E866 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sB8302A0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD90E6AC4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s16B0983D { margin-top:36pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4C6A1BBA { width:173.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4AA02E54 { width:2.34pt; display:inline-block } .s7C039683 { width:226.45pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF CSERNY v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 65833/09)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   18 February 2014               This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Cserny 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. 65833/09) 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 a Hungarian national, Mr Imre Cserny (“the applicant”), on 4 December 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr Z. Kuchár, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3.     On 6 June 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest. 5.     On 27 April 1995 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of fraud and forgery. 6.     The bill of indictment was preferred on 9 October 2000, and the first hearing took place in 2003. 7.     On 8 April 2010, after several hearings, the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty of the crimes he was charged with. 8.     On the applicant’s appeal, the Budapest Regional Court acquitted him on 27 May 2011. 9.     The judgment became final on 4 July 2011. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 11.     The Government did not contest that argument. 12.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 27 April 1995 and ended on 4 July 2011. It thus lasted for sixteen years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 13.     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, Pélissier and Sassi v.   France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II). 14.     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. 15.     Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 66,400 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 4,500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The Government contested the claims. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards him, on the basis of equity, EUR 10,000 under this head. Moreover, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court. 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 the applicant, 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)     EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (ii)     EUR 1,000 (one thousand 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 applicant’s 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 Naismith   Nebojša Vučinić   Registrar   President