SECOND SECTION

CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 16477/13)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 April 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,
	Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 16477/13) 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 László Nagy (“the applicant”), on 3 March 2013.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr I. Hegedűs, 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 9 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Balástya.
5.  On 11 July 2008 the applicant’s divorced wife brought an action against him seeking the termination of his custody rights.
6.  On 29 June 2011 the Pest Central District Court rearranged the applicant’s access rights and dismissed the remainder of the action. The court relied in particular on the opinion of an expert psychologist.
7.  On 4 July 2012 the Budapest High Court upheld this judgment (service: 3 September 2012).

THE LAW
8.  The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
9.  The Government contested that argument.
10.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 11 July 2008 and ended on 3 September 2012. It thus lasted four years and two months for two levels of jurisdiction.
In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
11.  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 and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). In cases relating to civil status, what is at stake for the applicant is also a relevant consideration, and special diligence is required in view of the possible consequences which the excessive length of proceedings may have, notably on enjoyment of the right to respect for family life (see Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I).
12.  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 Frydlender, cited above).
13.  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 breach of Article 6 § 1.
14.  Relying on several provisions of the Convention and its Protocols, the applicant also complained that the domestic courts’ decisions were wrong.
In so far as the applicant’s complaint may be understood to concern assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). In the present case, the Court considers that the applicant’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed 27,300 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage combined. The Government contested this claim.
The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him EUR 1,500 under that head.
16.  The applicant also claimed approximately EUR 500 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the full sum claimed, that is, EUR 500.
17.  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 complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

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 the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 500 (five hundred 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 22 April 2014, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Stanley Naismith	Helen Keller
	Registrar	President