KVACSKAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

• Judgment Date: 17 January 2019
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0117JUD006139414
• Respondent State: Hungria
• Date: 17 January 2019
• Application Number: 61394/14;72599/14;51117/15;51118/15;39912/16;25996/17
• Court: Fourth Section Committee (European Court of Human Rights)
• Counsel: FAZEKAS T. ; HATLACZKI G. ; RETTEGHY I. ; TIMAR C.
• Applied Rules: 6;6+6-1;6-1;13

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KVACSKAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 61394/14 and 5 others - see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 January 2019

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

In the case of Kvacskay and Others v. Hungary,

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

Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2018,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2. Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3. The list of applicants, their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. In application no. 61394/14 the applicant also raised another complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

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

6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal 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 ... any criminal charge against him, 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).

8. In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013, 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 as to 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.

III. OTHER ALLEGED...