FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 34384/21 Szandra HARASZTIA and Others against Hungary

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Raffaele Sabato, Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2021,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Mr J. Cseszlai, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

THE LAW

After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings. They offered to pay the applicants the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declaration.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

“... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the excessive length of civil proceedings (see, for example, Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015).

Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

In the light of the above considerations, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2022.

Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

34384/21

25/06/2021

(24 applicants)

Szandra HARASZTIA

1992Larisza HARASZTIA

1954László HARASZTIA

1956Dávid HARASZTIA

1992Péter HAJDÚ

1974Gergely HAJDÚ

2008Veronika HAJDÚ

2005Zsófia HAJDÚNÉ BENCZÉDY

1976Beáta KOLLÁR

1979Szaffi Zoé PUSKÁS

2006Artúr PUSKÁS

1976Kadosa Kán PUSKÁS

2008Artúr Bendegúz PUSKÁS

2004Emese MIHÁLYI

1978Zoltán FARKAS

1964Bálint FARKAS

2010Zoltán Gábor BAGYINSZKI

1972Nándor BAGYINSZKI

2005Dalma BAGYINSZKI

2008Nóra BAGYINSZKI

2011Annamária BAGYINSZKI-DOBOS

1976Bence BALABÁS

2006Andrea DARÓCZI

1966Béla BALABÁS

1965Cseszlai János

Budapest

19/04/2022

04/05/2022

2,000

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