CASE OF D�M�T�R v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 25065/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President, Andr�s Saj�, Neboj�a Vučinić, judges and Se�kin Erel , Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
The Government contested the claim, arguing that some of the impugned length was due to a stay of the proceedings (see paragraph 7 above), not imputable to the State.
The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him 4,200 euros (EUR) under that head, having regard to the fact that the delay caused by the death of a party is not attributable to the State. The applicant made no costs claim.
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,200 (four thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
BAILII · Verbatim mirror
In the case of D�m�t�r v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Andr�s Saj�,
Neboj�a Vučinić, judges
and Se�kin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 1 October 2013,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
THE LAW
The Government contested that argument.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 � 1.
The Government contested the claim, arguing that some of the impugned length was due to a stay of the proceedings (see paragraph 7 above), not imputable to the State.
The Court considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on the basis of equity, it awards him 4,200 euros (EUR) under that head, having regard to the fact that the delay caused by the death of a party is not attributable to the State. The applicant made no costs claim.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 � 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,200 (four thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 �� 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Se�kin Erel Peer Lorenzen
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.