FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF KÁLOVICS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 46030/18)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
19 September 2019
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kálovics v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
 Georges Ravarani,
 Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 August 2019,
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 3 September 2018. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms L. Horgos, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 3. Notice of the application was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He 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 ...”
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 applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 8. 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. 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 on 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. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATION UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. The applicant further submitted a complaint which raised an issue under Article 13 of the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). This complaint is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that it also discloses a violation of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazsó v. Hungary (cited above, § 21). REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. The applicant also raised other complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. 13. The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 14. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
15.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 13
Outcome: violation