SECOND SECTION

CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 72262/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

21 October 2014

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

In the case of Nagy v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Helen Keller, President,
	András Sajó,
	Robert Spano, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 September 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 72262/12) against the Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr Gábor Nagy (“the applicant”), on 5 November 2012.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr T. Borsos, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
3.  On 31 January 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
4.  The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government’s objection, the Court rejects it.
THE FACTS
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest.
6.  On 17 April 2007 the applicant was questioned as suspect on charges of theft.
7.  On 25 June 2008 the Budapest XIV/XVI District Public Prosecutor’s Office indicted the applicant for theft.
8.  On 14 October 2011 the Pest Central District Court acquitted the applicant.
9.  The first-instance judgment was upheld on appeal by the Budapest High Court on 8 October 2012. This judgment was served on the applicant on 19 October 2012.
THE LAW
I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
10.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”
11.  The Government contested that argument.
A.  Admissibility
12.  The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as he had not made a complaint under section 262/B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to expedite the procedure. In the Government’s view, such an application was an effective remedy as its use would have reduced the length of the proceedings.
13.  The applicant submitted that the delay in the proceedings had been caused by the authorities’ failure to schedule the first and subsequent hearings in a timely manner; and a request under section 262/B of the Criminal Procedure Code would not have remedied this delay.
14.  The Court recalls its finding in Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary (no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013) and considers that the remedy suggested by the Government cannot be regarded as an effective one to be exhausted in cases of protracted criminal proceedings.
15.  The Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies must thus be dismissed. The Court further notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B.  Merits
16.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 17 April 2007 and ended on 19 October 2012. It thus lasted five years and six months for two levels of jurisdiction.
17.  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 applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).
18.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see e.g. Pélissier and Sassi v. France, cited above; and 
Fejes v. Hungary, no. 7873/03, 11 April 2006).
19.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. 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. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20.  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.”
A.  Damage
21.  The applicant claimed 4,800 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
22.  The Government contested this claim.
23.  The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
B.  Costs and expenses
24.  The applicant also claimed EUR 1,540 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. This amount corresponds to 15 hours of legal work billable by his lawyer at an hourly rate of EUR 100 and translation costs.
25.  The Government did not express an opinion on this matter.
26.  According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court awards the full sum claimed.
C.  Default interest
27.  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 there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) euros, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 1,540 (one thousand five hundred and forty) euros, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;

4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 October 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Abel Campos	Helen Keller
	Deputy Registrar	President