CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 26 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 21225/10)               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   26 January 2016     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Nagy 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 5 January 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 21225/10) against 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 Lajos Nagy (“the applicant”), on 9 April 2010. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr F. Karsay, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 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 THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest. 5.     On 7 December 1995 the applicant was interrogated as suspect of breach of duty and other offences. 6.     In the ensuing criminal proceedings, after a remittal, the Budapest Regional Court acquitted the applicant on 5 November 2008. 7.     On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal on 26 November 2009. THE LAW 8.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 9.     The Government contested that argument. 10.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 December 1995 and ended on 26 November 2009. It thus lasted 13 years and 11 months for two levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 11.     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. 12.     Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed some pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to be awarded in line with the Court’s case-law in Hungarian length-of-proceedings cases. The Government contested this claim in general terms. 13.     The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him EUR   8,100 under that head. 14.     The applicant 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 the applicant, within three months EUR 8,100 (eight thousand one hundred 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 applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 26 January 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Fatoş Aracı   Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar   President