Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA

(Applications nos. 7918/19 and 43062/20 – see appended list)

JUDGMENT (Revision)

STRASBOURG

15 September 2022

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Balogh and Others v. Slovakia (request for revision of the judgment of 16 December 2021),

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Krzysztof Wojtyczek , President,

Erik Wennerström ,

Lorraine Schembri Orland , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 25 August 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1. The case originated in applications against Slovakia 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. In a judgment delivered on 16 December 2021, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the administrative proceedings. The Court also decided to award the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table.

3. On 17 February 2022 the Government informed the Court that they had learned that Mrs Margita Tóthová (application no. 7918/19) and Mr František Horváth (application no. 43062/20) had died on 25 July 2021 and 21 June 2021 respectively. They accordingly requested revision of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court asking the Court to strike the applications, in so far as brought by the above-mentioned applicants, out of its list of cases.

4. On 24 March 2022 the Court considered the request for revision and decided to give the applicants’ representative six weeks in which to submit any observations. They were received on 2 May 2022.

THE LAW

THE REQUEST FOR REVISION

5. The Government requested revision of the judgment of 16 December 2021. In the course of the execution of the judgment they had been informed by the applicants’ representative that Mrs Margita Tóthová and Mr František Horváth had died before the judgment had been adopted and that Ms Renata Fekete (born 1965), Mr Jozef Tóth (born 1969) and Mr Oto Tóth (born 1966) are heirs after Mrs Margita Tóthová, while Mr Róbert Horváth (born 1966) and Mr Tibor Horváth (born 1960) are heirs after Mr František Horváth. The applicants’ representative asked that the heirs should therefore receive the sums awarded to the deceased.

6. The Government argued that the heirs should have informed the Court earlier about the death of their close relatives and about their intention to pursue the proceedings. As they had failed to do so, they should not receive the sums awarded to the deceased applicants.

7. The Court accepts the Government’s argument that the applicants’ death had a decisive influence on the outcome of the judgment within the meaning of Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, namely the allocation of the amounts awarded under Article 41 of the Convention.

8. It therefore considers that the judgment of 16 December 2021 should be revised pursuant to Rule 80 of the Rules of Court, the relevant parts of which provide:

“A party may, in the event of the discovery of a fact which might by its nature have a decisive influence and which, when a judgment was delivered, was unknown to the Court and could not reasonably have been known to that party, request the Court ... to revise that judgment.

...”

9. The applicants’ representative stated that both applicants had died shortly before the Court’s judgment was issued and the heirs had had no time to intervene in the proceedings before the Court. Moreover, as regards Mrs Margita Tóthová, the decision of the Nové Zámky District Court (case no. 12D/891/2021) confirming the heirs became final only on 17 March 2022. As regards Mr František Horváth, the decision of the Komárno District Court (case no. 10D/52/2021) confirming his heirs became final on 15 November 2021. The heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings on their legal predecessors’ behalf.

10. The Court has previously decided to allow a request for revision lodged during the execution of a judgment, when heirs expressed their wish to continue the proceedings (see Cioată and Others v. Romania (revision), no. 48095/07, §§ 9-14, 11 February 2021 with further references).

11. In the present case the Court notes that the heirs are the applicants’ children and that they intervened in the procedure for the execution of the judgment arguing that they should be granted the just satisfaction awarded to the late applicants. The heirs reiterated their wish to continue the proceedings also in their submission before the Court ( a contrario, Borovská v. Slovakia (revision), no. 48554/10, § 6, 16 February 2016, where no heir expressed a wish to continue the proceedings).

12. Moreover, as follows from the documents submitted to the Court, the decision confirming Mr Horváth’s heirs became final only several days before the adoption of the Court’s judgment (25 November 2021), while the decision in respect of Mrs Tóthová became final several months after that date.

13. The Court further notes that Ms Renata Fekete, Mr Jozef Tóth, Mr Oto Tóth, Mr Róbert Horváth and Mr Tibor Horváth are the late applicants’ only heirs and that they submitted inheritance certificates as proof of their quality as heirs. Lastly, the Court cannot but observe that the present case concerns restitution proceedings that have been pending for more than 17 years at the domestic level and that at the time of its judgement the case was still pending before the Land Office acting as a first instance administrative organ.

14. Given the above mentioned, the Court decides to award to the heirs, jointly, the amount it had previously awarded to Mrs Margita Tóthová and Mr František Horváth, namely 7,500 euros (EUR), as just satisfaction.

15. 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,

and, accordingly:

(a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the heirs of Mrs Margita Tóthová and of Mr František Horváth, within three months, EUR 7,500, as just satisfaction, plus any tax that may be chargeable;

(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.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 September 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Viktoriya Maradudina Krzysztof Wojtyczek

Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of administrative proceedings)

No.

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Start of proceedings

End of proceedings

Total length

Levels of jurisdiction

Domestic court

File number

Domestic award

(in euros)

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant /household

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

7918/19

31/01/2019

Imrich BALOGH*

1929Born in 1929

The applicant died in May 2019

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:

Household

Pavol BALOGH

1957Alžbeta BALOGHOVÁ

1937Anna BÍRÓOVÁ

1948Alexander FEKETE

1939František FEKETE*

Born in 1944

The applicant died in 2021

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:

Household

Sára Feketeová

1948Szilvia Füri Fekete

1977Tímea Tóthová

1969Gabriel FEKETE*

Born in 1939

The applicant died in 2021

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:

Household

Janka Csehová

1967Peter Fekete

1969Ivan Fekete

1971László FEKETE

1950Ferdinand FORRÓ*

Born in 1957

The applicant died in 2020

The following relative has the quality of heir:

Mária Pajorová

1964Alžbeta GŐGHOVÁ

1939Alžbeta GŐGHOVÁ

1955Juliana GŐGHOVÁ

1931Zsuzsanna HOFFER

1979Sándor MAROSI

1962Å tefan MAROSI

1963Zoltán NÉVERI

1952Terézia NÉVERIOVÁ

1941Mária SZABÓOVÁ

1954Rozália SZABÓOVÁ

1930Margita TÓTHOVÁ*

1936The applicant died in 2021

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:

Household

Renata FEKETE

1965Jozef TÓTH

1969Oto TÓTH

1966Household

Katarína BARÁTHOVÁ

1951Lucia DOMJÁNOVÁ

1973Household

František FÖRDŐS

1950Imrich FÖRDŐS

1948Jozef FÖRDŐS

1945Gabriel MADARÁSZ

1961Ildikó STEFANKOVICSOVÁ

1966Household

Daniela KRAJČIOVÁ

1959Šarlota VARGOVÁ

1956Household

Gabriel NAGY

1961Ladislav NAGY

1961Roman NAGY

1978Margita PINTÉROVÁ*

Born in 1951

The applicant died in April 2019

The following relative has the quality of heir:

Tomáš Pintér

1975Anikó ŠÁLI NAGY

1982Household

Alexander OBONYA

1959Tibor OBONYA

1963Household

Orsolya BEIGELBECK

1981Katalin VARGA

1952Norbert VARGA

1976

23/12/2004

pending

More than 16 years and 10 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

Constitutional Court

IV. US 248/2018

300

7,500

250

43062/20

21/09/2020

Household

Csaba ANGYAL

1986Gabriel ANGYAL

1963Angela TÓTHOVÁ

1973Gizela BACHRATÁ

1950Helena BALOGHOVÁ*

Born in 1936

The applicant died in March 2021

The following relative has the quality of heir:

Ildikó Tánczosová

1968Eva FORRÓOVÁ

1964František HORVÁTH*

1930The applicant died in 2021

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:

Household

Róbert HORVÁTH

1966Tibor HORVÁTH

1960Róbert HORVÁTH

1966Tibor HORVÁTH

1960Anton MADARI

1942Klára MELEGOVÁ

1951Anna MOLNÁROVÁ

1942Zuzana MOLNÁROVÁ

1961Gejza NAGY

1954Jenő NAGY

1948Koloman NAGY

1963Å tefan NAGY

1959Tibor NAGY

1969Ladislav NÉVERI

1969Tibor NÉVERI

1940Juliana STREDOVÁ

1943Ján SZABÓ*

Born in 1934

The applicant died in 2020

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:

Household

Dóra Baloghová

1997Gertrúd Viderman

1963Jolana SZABÓOVÁ

1939Ladislav SZÉPE

1941Jozef TÓTH

1957Lívia TÓTHOVÁ

1955Mária TÓTHOVÁ

1952Terézia VARGOVÁ

1959Household

Gabriela ANGYALOVÁ

1955Mária CSENTEOVÁ

1953Household

Rozália CSENTEOVÁ

1956Alžbeta MÉSZÁROSOVÁ

1948Helena SZABÓOVÁ

1950Household

Mária CSONTOSOVÁ

1935Angelika GŐGHOVÁ

1964Katarína RIGÓOVÁ

1953Magdaléna SIVÁKOVÁ

1952Household

Marta HANKOVÁ

1968Koloman SZABÓ

1943Household

Gustáv KISS

1980Jolana KISSOVÁ

1955Household

Csilla KOVÁCSOVÁ

1972Vojtech NÉMETH

1967Edita NÉMETHOVÁ

1961Household

Peter LECZKÉSI

1966Margita LECZKÉSIOVÁ

1944Zuzana SZABÓOVÁ

1972Household

Peter VAJDA

1985Zsolt VAJDA

1969Katarína VAJDOVÁ

1966Household

Å tefan VARGA

1962Helena VARGOVÁ

1937Household

Silvia FEHÉROVÁ

1956Ladislav SZABÓ

1961

23/12/2004

pending

More than 16 years and 10 months

2 levels of jurisdiction

Constitutional Court

II. US 392/2019

300

7,500

250[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

Menu

AFFAIRE BALOGH ET AUTRES c. SLOVAQUIE

AFFAIRE BALOGH ET AUTRES c. SLOVAQUIE

LEXI