Here’s a breakdown of the Horváth and Others v. Hungary decision by the European Court of Human Rights:
1. **Essence of the Decision:**
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruled that Hungary violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings in the cases of several applicants. The Court examined five separate applications jointly, finding that the length of the proceedings in each case was unreasonable. Additionally, the Court found violations regarding other complaints raised by some applicants under the Convention, referencing its established case-law. As a result, the Court ordered Hungary to pay the applicants specified amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, as well as costs and expenses.
2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
* **Procedure:** The judgment begins by outlining the procedural history, noting that the applications were lodged against Hungary under Article 34 of the Convention.
* **Facts:** It summarizes the key details of each application, including the applicants’ complaints about the excessive length of criminal proceedings.
* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
* **Alleged Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The core of the judgment addresses the applicants’ complaints that the length of their criminal proceedings violated their right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court assessed the reasonableness of the length of proceedings based on the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and authorities, and what was at stake for the applicants.
* **Other Alleged Violations:** The decision also addresses other complaints raised by some applicants, finding additional violations based on the Court’s well-established case-law.
* **Application of Article 41:** The Court applied Article 41 of the Convention, which allows it to award just satisfaction to the injured party if internal law only allows partial reparation.
* **Operative Part:** The judgment concludes by declaring the applications admissible, holding that there was a breach of Article 6 § 1 regarding the length of proceedings, and finding violations regarding the other complaints. It orders Hungary to pay specific amounts to each applicant as compensation.
3. **Main Provisions for Use:**
* **Violation of Article 6 § 1:** The key takeaway is the finding that Hungary violated Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the excessive length of criminal proceedings. This reaffirms the importance of timely justice and the state’s obligation to ensure proceedings do not drag on unreasonably.
* **Reference to Established Case-Law:** The decision refers to the Court’s existing case-law, particularly the Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary case, indicating that the principles applied in this case are consistent with previous rulings on similar issues.
* **Compensation:** The judgment specifies the amounts of compensation to be paid to each applicant, providing a tangible outcome and a measure of the damages suffered due to the violations.
* **Other Violations:** The decision also highlights other violations of the Convention, indicating that the applicants’ rights were infringed in multiple ways.
**** This decision may be relevant to Ukraine, as it underscores the importance of ensuring timely and fair criminal proceedings, a principle that is vital for upholding the rule of law and protecting human rights.
