BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

 

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KÁLOVICS v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 46030/18 )

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

19 September 2019

 

 

 

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

 

In the case of Kálovics v. Hungary ,

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

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President,
Georges Ravarani ,
Jolien Schukking , judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 29 August 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   September   2018.

2.     The applicant was represented by Ms L. Horgos , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

3.     Notice of the application was given to the Hungarian Government ("the   Government").

THE FACTS

4.     The applicant ' s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.     The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings . He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

6.     The applicant complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the "reasonable time" requirement. He 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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant 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 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.

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

2. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW

11.     The applicant further submitted a complaint which raised an issue under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill - founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazsó v.   Hungary (cited above, §   21) .

3. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.     The applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.

13.     The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

14.     It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention.

4. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.     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."

16.     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.

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 complaints concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings and the other complaint under well-established case-law of the Court , as set out in the appended table, admissible, and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings ;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention as regards the other complaint raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
4. Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, 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 19 September 2019 , pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

              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 .