CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 8 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCC1BFA42 { width:5.53pt; display:inline-block } .s9E16BFD3 { width:201.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block }       SECOND SECTION               CASE OF VARGÁNÉ FEKETE v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 27618/10)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   8 October 2013         This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Vargáné Fekete v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Atilla Nalbant, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 27618/10) 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, Ms Ildikó Vargáné Fekete (“the applicant”), on 10 May 2010. 2.     The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3.     On 7 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 4.     The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Budapest. 5.     On 18 June 2000 the applicant’s ex-husband lodged an action for divorce and partition of matrimonial property against the applicant. 6.     On 6 November 2007 the Buda Central District Court delivered a judgment. 7.     Both the applicant and the plaintiff appealed. On 4 September 2008 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, delivered a judgment partly modifying the first-instance judgment. 8.     The applicant’s ex-husband lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 6 October 2009, after an examination on the merits. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 9.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by a ... tribunal...” 10.     The Government contested that argument. 11.     The period to be taken into consideration began on 18 June 2000 and ended on 6 October 2009. It thus lasted approximately nine years and three months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible. 12.     The Court reiterates that 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 ( Laino v. Italy [GC], no. 33158/96, § 18, ECHR 1999-I). 13.     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 v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR   2000-VII). 14.     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. 15.     The applicant claimed 68,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. 16.     The Government contested these claims. 17.     The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards her, on the basis of equity, EUR 3,900. 18.     The applicant made no costs claim. 19.     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 application admissible;   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, EUR 3,900 (three thousand nine hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Hungarian forints 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;   4.     Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Atilla Nalbant   Peer Lorenzen Acting Deputy Registrar   President