SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KISS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 11468/24)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
16 January 2025
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Kiss and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Davor Derenčinović, President,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2024,
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 5 April 2024. 2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. The applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
5. 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 ...”
6. 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). 7. 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. 8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. 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. 9. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
10. The applicants submitted other complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gazsó, cited above, § 21. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
11.

Outcome for Article 13: violation