CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 22 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s308FBE0C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s31E56244 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA087DB47 { width:19.3pt; display:inline-block } .s73A97429 { width:200.99pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       SECOND SECTION             CASE OF DÖMÖTÖR v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 25065/09)                 JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   22 October 2013             This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dömötör 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 Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 25065/09) 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, Mr Gábor Dömötör (“the applicant”), on 24 April 2009. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr Gy.Á. Benkő, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. 3.     On 23 November 2011 the President of the Second Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was allocated to a Committee of three Judges. THE FACTS 4.     The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest. 5.     On 22 November 2002 Ms G.D. and two others brought an action against the applicant and ten further respondents before the Budapest IV/XV District Court, seeking title to, and termination of, co-ownership. Several respondents lived abroad, causing certain difficulties in summoning them. 6.     The District Court held six hearings between 3 June 2003 and 28   January 2005. 7.     On 27 July 2005 the proceedings were stayed on account of the death of respondent A.G. The applicant, on whom this was legally incumbent, invited the successors to join the proceedings on 22 January 2007. 8.     Between 18 October 2007 and 22 May 2009 five further hearings were held. A partial judgment was delivered on 4 June 2009. 9.     On 23 November 2010 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and, by its order of 30 November 2010, quashed the partial judgment and remitted the case to the first instance. 10.     In the resumed proceedings, four hearings were held and a partial judgment was delivered on 25 November 2011. 11.     The proceedings continued on appeal before the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court. This court adopted a final partial decision on 7   May 2013. 12.     As to the remainder, it appears from the documents in the case file that the proceedings are still pending. THE LAW 13.     The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government contested that argument. 14.     The period in question began on 22 November 2002 and has not yet ended. Thus the length to be taken into consideration is about ten years and ten months to date, for two levels of jurisdiction. 15.     In view of such lengthy proceedings and in the absence of any other grounds for inadmissibility, the application must be declared admissible. 16.     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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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. 17.     Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant claimed just satisfaction in general terms for the non-pecuniary damage sustained. The Government contested the claim, arguing that some of the impugned length was due to a stay of the proceedings (see paragraph 7 above), not imputable to the State. The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him 4,200 euros (EUR) under that head, having regard to the fact that the delay caused by the death of a party is not attributable to the State. The applicant made no costs claim. 18.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest 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 4,200 (four thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage; (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 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Seçkin Erel   Peer Lorenzen Acting Deputy Registrar   President