CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 11 janvier 2018

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s80E2F039 { width:6.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7F7BA6ED { width:180.41pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s299B0C58 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .s651D8A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF SOLTÉSZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 66534/11)                           JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   11 January 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Soltész and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 October 2011. 2.     The application was communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the complaints are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 5.     The applicants complained that the length of the civil 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 his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 6.     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 Frydlender v.   France [GC], no.   30979/96, §   43, ECHR 2000-VII). 7.     In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 6 July 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. II.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 10.     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.” 11.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 12.     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 the application discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;   3.     Holds (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 11 January 2018, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applicants Applicant name Date of birth   Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] Jánosné SOLTÉSZ 15/11/1952 Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Magdolna BONTÁNÉ SZALAI 22/07/1949 Feldebrő   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Andrea FEHÉRNÉ JOÓ 09/05/1972 Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Klára KORPONYINÉ DRAHOS 10/11/1967 Tófalu   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Miklósné KOZMA 21/03/1949 Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000       Tiborné MAJOROS 09/07/1946 Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Laszlóné SIMON 11/10/1961 Feldebrő   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Jánosné TAKÁCS 28/07/1946 Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Mária MOLNÁRNÉ NAGY Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Bertalanné KISBERDÓ 21/02/1948 Verpelét   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000 Gyuláné NAGY 05/11/1955 Feldebrő   03/10/2006 10/12/2013 7 years and 2 months for one level of jurisdiction 4000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.