Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Second Section Committee), June 09, 2015 (case CASE OF L'TRADING AND INVEST LINES KFT v. HUNGARY)

• Judge: MESTER Cs.
• Defense: HUNGARY
• Resolution Date: June 09, 2015
• Issuing Organization: Court (Second Section Committee)

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF L’TRADING AND INVEST LINES KFT v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 54730/12)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

9 June 2015

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

In the case of L’Trading and Invest Lines Kft 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 19 May 2015,

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

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in an application (no. 54730/12) against 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 limited liability company, L’Trading and Invest Lines Kft (“the applicant”), on 16 August 2012.

2. The applicant was represented by Mr Cs. Mester, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice.

3. On 11 October 2012 the application was communicated to the Government.

   THE FACTS

4. As respondent party, the applicant was involved in a case of property litigation as of 6 March 1996.

5. Due to pending proceedings before the construction authorities, the Pest Central District Court suspended the procedure. Subsequently, a first hearing was held in 1999.

6. The court separated the proceedings from further claims on 2 December 2004.

7. On 27 June 2006 the court rejected the counterclaim of the applicant.

8. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court quashed this decision on 27 March 2007. It remitted this part of the action to the first-instance court.

9. In the resumed proceedings the first-instance court partly found for the applicant on 27 January 2010.

10. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this judgment on 1 January 2010.

11. The applicant lodged a petition for review; and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment on 9 November 2011. The decision was served on the applicant on 1 March 2012.

    THE LAW

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

12. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

13. The Government contested that argument.

14. The period to be taken into consideration began on 6 March 1996 and terminated on 1 March 2012. It...