SECOND SECTION

CASE OF KISS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 11468/24)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

16 January 2025

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

In the case of Kiss and Others v. Hungary,

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

 Davor Derenčinović, President,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,

and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,

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 5 April 2024.

2.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

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

5.  The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil 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 his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

6.  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 Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

7.  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.

8.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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.

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

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

10.  The applicants submitted other complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazsó, cited above, § 21.

3. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

11.  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.”

12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

13.  In regard to some of the applicants, the Court notes that their complaints relate to claims that belonged to their legal predecessors – that is, to creditors who meanwhile deceased. However, in related applications before the Court (nos. 32647/23, 33437/23 and 594/24), other heirs of the same original creditors have already concluded friendly settlements with the Government. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the applicants so indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses 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 the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
4. Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants so indicated in the appended table;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the remaining applicants, 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 16 January 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Attila Teplán Davor Derenčinović

 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.