FIRST SECTION

CASE OF KAMARÁS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 16771/23)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

30 November 2023

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Kamarás and Others v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
 Lətif Hüseynov,
 Ivana Jelić, judges,

and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 November 2023,

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 April 2023.

2.  The applicants were represented by Mr V. Kodela, 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.

6.  On 28 August 2023 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that the applicant Ms Józsefné Endrész had withdrawn her complaints.

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

7.  The Court finds at the outset that the applicant Ms Józsefné Endrész may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application in her regard.

8.  The remaining 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 ...”

9.  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).

10.  In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015, the Court found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention in relation to the length of judicial proceedings.

11.  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.

12.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

2. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

13.  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.”

14.  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.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in regard of Ms Józsefné Endrész;
2. Declares the remaining applicants’ complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings admissible;
3. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;
4. 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 30 November 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Attila Teplán Krzysztof Wojtyczek
 Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.