LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
ZSIFKOVICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 25717/21;35928/21;46670/21 • ECHR ID: 001-217951
Document date: May 19, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
ZSIFKOVICS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 25717/21;35928/21;46670/21 • ECHR ID: 001-217951
Document date: May 19, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25717/21 István ZSIFKOVICS and Others against Hungary and 2 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 May 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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications 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 I. Barbalics , 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
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts 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 these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 cases.
The applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
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 cases 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 declarations 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 applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2022.
Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
No.
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/household
(in euros) [1]
25717/21
07/05/2021
(29 applicants)
István ZSIFKOVICS
1953Mariann ANTOSNÉ SZÍVA
1956Szilveszter Tibor BALOG
1954József BECZŐK
1942Zoltánné BEDŐK
1940Miklós BERTALAN
1950Lajos Károlyné BÖDÖCS
1958Imre CSENGERI
1955Lászlóné CSIZMAZIA
1950Lajosné GROÁK
1941Csabáné KALUCZA
1946Zoltán KERTÉSZ
1948Veronika KRAUZIERITZNÉ LADOS
1961Lászlóné NÉMETH
1937Szilárd Gergely OROVICA
1977Károlyné ÓVÁRI
1946Ferencné PAPP
1942László SOLYMOS
1947Gézáné SZABÓ
1941Károly SZABÓ
1952Tamás Gyula SZARVAS
1946Vendelné SZŰCS
1947Mihályné UHRIN
1969Csaba Lajos VÖLGYI
1955József ZSIDEI
1958Ferencné ZSIGOVICS
1969Zoltán ZSOLDOS
1977Household
Gergely NAGY
1957István NAGY
1954Barbalics István
Budapest
12/04/2022
23/04/2022
9,100
35928/21
30/06/2021
(14 applicants)
Zsuzsanna Zsófia VISONTAI
1971Miklós SZIVA
1954József MAY
1970István FÖLDI
1930József SZEMETI
1952Ferencné SZEPESI
1946György SZABÓ
1953Józsefné ALMÁSI
1938Tibor NAGY
1960Katalin VÁRADI
1967Miklós Ferencné BŐLE
1959Ernő BÍRÓ
1951László ÓDOR
1951László PORDÁNY
1951Barbalics István
Budapest
13/04/2022
23/04/2022
9,100
46670/21
08/09/2021
(21 applicants)
Géza VADÁSZ
1943Kálmán BENDE
1937Lajos GULYÁS
1953Lászlóné ERDŐS
1965Zoltán ZÁDORI
1954Ferencné IHÁSZ
1954Lajosné EGYED
1939László BOROS
1947Attila FERENC
1950Kálmán KASZÁS
1961András ERDŐHÁTI
1961István József BEZZEG
1934Lívia Mária STOMPNÉ KOLLÁR
1957István TÓTH
1959József BÖRZSEI
1959János TAKÁCS
1943Mátyás STIPKOVITS
1951Tibor PINTYE
1958Ferenc István KOVÁCS
1952Márta SZELÉNÉ VARGA
1964Tibor GÖMÖRI
1961Barbalics István
Budapest
14/04/2022
23/04/2022
9,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
