SECOND SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF GAZSÓ v. HUNGARY
 
(Application no. 48322/12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
16 July 2015
 
 
FINAL
 
16/10/2015
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Gazsó v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Işıl Karakaş, President,
 András Sajó,
 Nebojša Vučinić,
 Helen Keller,
 Paul Lemmens,
 Egidijus Kūris,
 Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 23 June 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 48322/12) 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 national, Mr György Gazsó (“the applicant”), on 24 July 2012. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3. The applicant alleged that litigation in his labour dispute had lasted an unreasonably long time and there was no effective remedy available to him in this regard. He relied on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention. 4. On 13 November 2014 the application was communicated to the Government. At the same time, the Court proposed the pilot judgment procedure (Rule 61 of the Rules of Court) to the parties. The parties submitted comments in that respect. THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Telki. 6. Between 25 February 2002 and 18 May 2005, litigation was in progress between the applicant and his former employer. The latter was eventually obliged to re-employ the applicant. 7. The applicant did not accept the position that was offered to him in pursuit of the re-employment order. New litigation started on 
5 January 2006. 8. On 18 November 2008 the Budapest Labour Court dismissed the applicant’s action. 9. On appeal, on 9 July 2010 the Budapest Regional Court reversed this decision and found for the applicant. 10. The respondent pursued a petition for review before the Kúria. On 29 February 2012 this court reversed the appeal judgment and found for the respondent. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
11. 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, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribuna l...”
12. The Government contested this view. 13. The period to be taken into consideration began on 5 January 2006 and ended on 29 February 2012. It thus lasted almost six years and two months for three levels of jurisdiction. A. Admissibility
14. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B. Merits
15. 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, among many other authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII. The Court reiterates that special diligence is necessary in employment disputes (see Ruotolo v. Italy, 27 February 1992, § 17, Series A no. 230‑D; Mangualde Pinto v. France, no. 43491/98, § 27, 9 April 2002). 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, Kútfalvi v. Hungary, no. 4853/02, §§ 17-19, 5 October 2004). In the instant case, the Court observes that the dispute was not of any particular complexity. It concerned the question of the applicant’s re-employment; however, the Court is not satisfied that the authorities exercised the requisite due diligence in bringing the case to an end. Moreover, the applicant or the respondent party have not been shown to have caused any particular delay. 17. 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. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
18. The applicant further complained of the fact that there was no effective remedy available to him by which to accelerate the proceedings. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention which provides as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
19. The Government contested this view in general terms. 20. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 21. The Convention institutions have already held that there was no effective domestic remedy available in respect of the protraction of civil proceedings in Hungary (see Bartha v. Hungary, no. 33486/07, § 21, 25 March 2014; Mr T.K. and Mrs T.K. v. Hungary, no. 26209/95, Commission decision of 21 May 1997). The Government have not shown that the situation has changed in the meantime, either in terms of acceleratory or compensatory remedies.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 6
Outcome: violation