CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 12 janvier 2016

.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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD8D10B43 { width:206.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF SINDELY v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 54602/11)                             JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   12 January 2016     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sindely v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 54602/11) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Hungarian nationals, Mr András Sindely and Mrs Andrásné Sindely (“the applicants”), on 23 August 2011. 2.     The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr   Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3.     On 8 January 2015 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS 4.     The applicants, a married couple, were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in Piliscsaba. 5.     On 7 December 2001 the first applicant was deliberately shot by one of his colleagues and suffered serious injuries making him disabled. 6.     On an unspecified date in 2004, the first applicant and his family (including his wife, the second applicant) brought an action in damages against the first applicant’s employer. On 14 June 2005 the president of the Pest County Labour Court ordered the priority treatment of the case. 7.     On 19 January 2006 the Pest County Labour Court found for the applicants in an interim judgment establishing the well-foundedness of the legal basis of the claim.   The first instance interim judgment was upheld by the Pest County Court on 5 January 2007. 8.     The exact compensation amount to be paid by the employer was decided by a judgment of the Pest County Labour Court on 9 November 2010. The decision was upheld and partly amended by the final judgment of the Pest County Court adopted on 4 May 2011. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10.     The Government contested that argument. 11.     The period to be taken into consideration began in 2004 and ended on 4 May 2011. It thus lasted some 7 years for two levels of jurisdiction. 12.     In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible. 13.     Having examined all the material submitted to it 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 Gazsó v. Hungary , no. 48322/12, §   17, 16 July 2015). There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1. II.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 14.     Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, each of the applicants claimed 4,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. In addition, the first applicant claimed 3,726,000 Hungarian forints (approximately EUR 12,500) in respect of pecuniary damage. 15.     The Government contested these claims. 16.     The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. On   the other hand, the Court considers that the applicants must have sustained non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards them jointly EUR 3,000 under that head. 17.     The applicants did not make any costs claim. It is therefore not necessary to adopt a decision on the matter. 18.     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 applicants jointly, within three months,   EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, 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;   4.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 12   January   2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar   President