CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 13 janvier 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCBF2D345 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .sA4DA97BF { width:145.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF PÓCZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 13353/21)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 13 January 2022   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pócza and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström, President,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 9 December 2021, 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 1   March   2021. 2.     The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 3.     The Hungarian Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. 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 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally 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 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). 8.     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. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. OTHER COMPLAINTS 11.     The applicant Ms Ilona Balázsné Pagács also complained that the length of the proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. However, the Court observes that the same applicant has already made an identical complaint in application no. 390/21. In these circumstances, this complaint does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article   35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. 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 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, Declares the complaint of Ms Ilona Balázsné Pagács inadmissible and the remainder of the application (72 applicants) admissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings; Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, 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 13 January 2022, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.   Attila Teplán   Erik Wennerström   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 Year of birth/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 /household (in euros) [1] 13353/21 01/03/2021 (72 applicants) Gyula PÓCZA 1928 Janos AUTH 1934   BAJAI KOMMUNÁLIS KFT. 2009 Éva BALÁZS 1969 Lászlóné BALÁZS 1944 Péter Gyula BALÁZS 1968 Gábor László BÁSTI 1935 István BIHARI 1944 Mihály BODA 1955 Andrásné BODNÁR 1941 Ferencné BUZÁS 1952 László CSIZMADIA 1950 Mónika CSIZMADIA 1971 András EREDICS 1955 Imre ERŐSS 1965 Mária FISCHERNÉ ERŐS 1960 Jenő FORGÓ 1939 László Gyula FRIGY 1967 Miklós GARTNER 1958 Istvánné GYÖRE 1960 Antal HAKLITS 1948 Gábor HAVAS 1953 Róbert István HÉJJA 1966 Dezső HŐBE 1924 János HORVÁTH 1951 Miklós HORVÁTH 1940 Erzsébet Mária KÁNTORNÉ SZABÓ 1955 Artúr KASOVITZ 1924 Lajosné KELEMEN 1964 Eszter KÖRTVÉLYESI 1946 Miklós LACZI 1947 József Istvánné LAJKÓ 1957 Gyula LEGLER 1947 József LEGLER 1957 Sándor Jánosné LEHOCZKI 1930 Éva LESZLAUERNÉ SIKOS 1954 László MAGOSI 1946 Frigyes MORVAY 1936 Károly Ferenc NADRAI 1951 Csaba NAGY 1944 János NAGY 1950 Géza Istvánné PÁLYKA 1937 István Géza PÁLYKA 1960 László Zzoltné PÁVICS 1959 László Gábor PIROSKA 1955 József POZSGAI 1938 Antal Sándor RENDES 1950 Ferenc ROHRBACHER 1966 Gézáné SCHÉDER 1930 Józsefné SEBESTYÉN 1947 László SEFCSIK 1952 Gyula SIKOS 1956 Lajos SÜMEGHI 1950 Miklós SZABÓ 1948 István SZAPPANOS 1939 Csaba SZELTNER 1966   SZOMBATHELYI COOP ZRT. 2007 László TÓTH 1951 Györgyi Csilla TÖTH 1961 Zoltán ZÁBORSZKY 1952 Bernadett ZÁMBÓNÉ ÁGOSTON 1978   Household Béla GERGELY 1968 Anna GERGELYNÉ PÁPISTA 1968   Household Klára Erzsébet RÁCZ-SZABÓNÉ 1993 Anna Mária SZABÓ 2010 Csaba Zsolt SZABÓ 1994 Gergely András SZABÓ 1997 Mária SZABÓNÉ TAKÁCS 1967   Household Gábor Ernő MIHÁCSI 1951 Gáborné MIHÁCSI 1953   Household Anna KIS 1966 Hanna TICK 1988   Barbalics István Budapest 05/11/1992   pending   More than 29 year(s) and 5 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   9,100     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.