CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 15 novembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; 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 } .s7AF9E746 { width:20.69pt; display:inline-block } .s4DAA9627 { width:178.94pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .s39FC5D7A { height:22.45pt } .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 PÁZSI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 72595/13 and 8 others - see appended list )                               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   15 November 2018       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pázsi and others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 25   October   2018, 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.     Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). 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. In application no.   39649/15, the applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 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 in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 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. III.     OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 11.     In application no.   39649/15, the applicant submitted another complaint under Article 13 of the Convention which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Barta and Drajkó , cited above, § 26. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 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. 14.     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.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the applications admissible;   3.     Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings;   4.     Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in application no   39649/15;   5.     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 15 November 2018, pursuant to Rule 77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani 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 Date 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]     72595/13 13/11/2013 János Pázsi 15/01/1983 Sik János Budapest 08/08/2008   03/07/2013   4 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction     2,500     49607/14 04/07/2014 Ferenc Sánta 03/12/1980 Futaki Gézáné Békéscsaba 10/05/2009   17/04/2014   4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     2,000     6233/15 19/01/2015 Beshir Ademi 11/01/1978 Gyuris Ágnes Budapest 27/08/2009   02/09/2014   5 year(s) and 7 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     2,000     23259/15 06/05/2015 György Hunvald 07/07/1965     01/10/2010   12/02/2015   4 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 12 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     1,300     26974/15 27/05/2015 Ali Zaki Toohaw 15/06/1982 Fazekas Tamás Budapest 31/12/2008   27/11/2014   5 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 28 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction     800     32382/15 16/06/2015 Bertalan Kovács 29/06/1979     Koós László Zoltán Debrecen 22/03/2010   01/05/2015   5 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 10 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     2,000     33932/15 07/07/2015 Mihályné Zsíros 09/06/1945 Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke Budapest 15/02/2010   06/05/2015   5 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 22 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction     2,000     35165/15 09/07/2015 Bettina Zsíros-Vagyóczki 26/06/1980 Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke Budapest 16/04/2010   06/05/2015   5 year(s) and 21 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   2,000     39649/15 06/08/2015 Leonárd Weinek 21/08/1968     30/11/2010   12/02/2015   4 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 14 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings - 1,300     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.