FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF SINDELY v. HUNGARY
 
(Application no. 54602/11)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
12 January 2016
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Sindely v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Nona Tsotsoria, President,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 December 2015,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 54602/11) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Hungarian nationals, Mr András Sindely and Mrs Andrásné Sindely (“the applicants”), on 23 August 2011. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice. 3. On 8 January 2015 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
4. The applicants, a married couple, were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in Piliscsaba. 5. On 7 December 2001 the first applicant was deliberately shot by one of his colleagues and suffered serious injuries making him disabled. 6. On an unspecified date in 2004, the first applicant and his family (including his wife, the second applicant) brought an action in damages against the first applicant’s employer. On 14 June 2005 the president of the Pest County Labour Court ordered the priority treatment of the case. 7. On 19 January 2006 the Pest County Labour Court found for the applicants in an interim judgment establishing the well-foundedness of the legal basis of the claim. The first instance interim judgment was upheld by the Pest County Court on 5 January 2007. 8. The exact compensation amount to be paid by the employer was decided by a judgment of the Pest County Labour Court on 9 November 2010. The decision was upheld and partly amended by the final judgment of the Pest County Court adopted on 4 May 2011. THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9. The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. The Government contested that argument. 11. The period to be taken into consideration began in 2004 and ended on 4 May 2011. It thus lasted some 7 years for two levels of jurisdiction. 12. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this application must be declared admissible. 13. Having examined all the material submitted to it and 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 (see Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, § 17, 16 July 2015).

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