FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF CZEBE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
 
(Application no. 72114/13 and 11 others - see appended list)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
21 February 2019
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Czebe and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Georges Ravarani, President,
 Marko Bošnjak,
 Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 31 January 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2. Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants 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. III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted another complaint which also raised issues 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. Hungary (cited above, § 21). IV. REMAINING COMPLAINTS
12. In application no. 72114/13, the applicants also raised a complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the fairness of the proceedings, in particular, the principle of “equality of arms”. 13. Given that the Kúria has meanwhile repeated the proceedings in question in a manner that was in full compliance with the requirements of adversarial procedure, the Court is satisfied that the applicants can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in this connection. This complaint therefore does not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention. It follows that this part of application no. 72114/13 must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
14.

Outcome for Article 6: violation