CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juin 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sCAF42A0A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:21.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.3pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 KIS-KECSKEMÉT KFT AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 12016/15 )                       JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   6 June 2019       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kis-Kecskemét Kft 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 16 May 2019, 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 3   March   2015. 2.     The applicants were represented by Ms E. Kadlót, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 3.     Notice of the application was given to the Hungarian Government (“the   Government”). THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     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 ...” 7.     The Court notes from the outset that the individual applicants, that is Mr and Mrs Tibor Kis and Mr Róbert Kis, were not parties to the impugned proceedings and thus cannot claim to be victims of the alleged violation. It follows that in their regard the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) and must be rejected, in accordance with Article   35   §   4. 8.     As regards the applicant company Kis-Kecskemét Kft, 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). 9.     In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.     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 on 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. 11.     This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the applicant company Kis ‑ Kecskemét Kft. II.     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 considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table to the applicant company Kis-Kecskemét Kft. 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.     Declares the application in regard of the applicant company Kis ‑ Kecskemét Kft admissible and in regard of the other applicants inadmissible;   2.     Holds that this complaint 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 Kis-Kecskemét Kft, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 6 June 2019, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of civil proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date o birth / Date of registration   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 12016/15 03/03/2015 (4 applicants) Kis-Kecskemét Kft 20/05/1991   Tibor KIS 23/07/1965   Róbert KIS 23/07/1965   Tiborné KIS 17/01/1947 Kadlót Erzsébet Budapest 31/12/2008   pending   More than 10 year(s) and 2   month(s) and 7   day(s) 3   level(s) of jurisdiction   5,200 only to the first applicant, Kis-Kecskemét Kft     [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.