4.  The applicant is a limited liability company in winding-up, with its seat in Budapest. 5.  On 3 July 2000 the applicant company brought an action in damages against its previous managing director. 6.  On 23 April 2008 the Budapest Regional Court partly found for the applicant company and ordered the respondent to pay it 5,481,027 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 18,700 euros (EUR)) and accrued interests. 7.  This decision was upheld by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 25 February 2009. 8.  The applicant company’s petition for review, lodged with the Supreme Court, was dismissed after an examination of the merits on 15 December 2009.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
9.  The applicant company 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 on 3 July 2000 and ended on 15 December 2009. It thus lasted nine years and five months for three levels of jurisdiction. In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.
12.  The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000–VII).
13.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present circumstances. 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.
There has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
14.  The applicant company also complained under Articles 6 § 1, 13 and 14 about the outcome and the alleged unfairness of the proceedings. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
In so far as this complaint may be understood to concern the assessment of the evidence and the result of the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Court reiterates that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. Moreover, while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence or the way it should be assessed, which are therefore primarily matters for regulation by national law and the national courts (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999–I).
In the present case, the Court is satisfied that the applicant company’s submissions do not disclose any appearance that the courts lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair or arbitrary. There is no indication of a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Articles 13 or 14, either.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
15.  Lastly, the applicant company complained – and this for the first time in its submissions of 18 June 2013 – that the length of the proceedings complained of had infringed its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, as guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The Court considers that the six-month period within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 started to run on 15 December 2009, the date when the last domestic decision was adopted in the case. However, this complaint was submitted only on 18 June 2013, that is, outside the six-month time-limit. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
16.  Relying on Article 41 of the Convention, the applicant company claimed altogether approximately EUR 23,000 plus accrued interests in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The Government contested the claim. The Court considers that the applicant company must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage and awards it, on the basis of equity, EUR 2,700.
17.  The applicant company further claimed HUF 3,659,230 (approximately EUR 12,500) for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts. It also claimed in general terms the reimbursement of costs incurred before the Court. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter. Having regard to the documents in its possession and its case-law, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings, but considers it reasonable to award the applicant company, represented by a lawyer, the sum of EUR 1,000 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.
18.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
 
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, the following amounts, to be converted into Hungarian forints at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
 
4.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 22 October 2013, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Seçkin ErelPeer LorenzenActing Deputy RegistrarPresident