Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 37413/22 Lajos KESZEI and Others against Hungary

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 February 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,

and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 2022,

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 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”).

On 18 October 2022 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Ms Antalné Golács withdrew her complaint.

THE LAW

The Court concludes that the applicant Ms Antalné Golács may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application in her regard.

Moreover, 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 the remaining applicants’ 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 amounts 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 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 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,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in regard of Ms Antalné Golács;

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 remainder of 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 2 March 2023.

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]

37413/22

25/07/2022

(89 applicants)

Lajos KESZEI

1939Gabor VITÁRIS

1943László KAMMEL

1944István RAJCSÁNYI

1949Imre ERDŐS

1946Zoltán TUJNER

1948József KOVÁCS

1958Lajos KOVÁCS

1943Amália NAGYNÉ BAKOS

1945Antal BÁCSKAY

1933Éva Emőke SZENTE

1981Klára RÉVÉSZ

1945János GAZDAG

1953Gábor Ferenc SZALAI

1936Tibor VARGA

1958József HURIK

1965Edina HOLLÓS

1968József Árpád PIRI

1951Attila Lászlóné BÁN

1940Attila LIPNICZKY

1969Andor PARÁDI

1927János Csaba PÁLFI

1967Tiborné MOLNÁR

1945Ferenc MÁRKUS

1936József HORVÁTH

1945Attiláné PÉK

1944Zita CSERMÁKNÉ JESZENSZKY

1940János István BÓTH

1949Tibor László KEPPEL

1942Józsefné KÖHLER

1957Ottó HÉRA

1939Mónika KESZLER

1974Barnabás BALOGH

1944Károly HAJDU

1942Ildikó KOVÁCSNÉ SZABÓ

1983László Tibor SAMU

1963Attila MOLNÁR

1942Lajosné VIDOSICS

1940Noémi Mária KOCZKA

1971Gyula Álmosné OROSZ

1943Edit MOLNÁRNÉ OROSZ

1975József PETES

1946Ottóné MILEDER

1932András Kálmánné NÉMETH

1951Imre TAKÁCS

1944Lajosné BARTI

1953Györgyné BLASKOVICS

1940Istvánné ZIMONYI

1948Sándor Ferencné CSIZMADIA

1942Józsefné KELEMEN

1937Ferenc MOHÁCSI

1943Viktória Mária EGRI-MOHÁCSY

1972Jenőné MOHÁCSY

1942Ildikó BERCSÉNYINÉ EITL

1974Tamás Attila MOHÁCSI

1975Lászlóné NÉMETH

1943József HABENICHT

1946Judit GRESZLERNÉ FÜLE

1979Judit Gizella VÁMOSI

1951László SZENTÁGOTAI

1937Gábor BALOGH

1960József SZABÓ

1956István Pál DEMETER

1948Lajos VIDOSICS

1938Ilona NEDLER

1945Erika ORSÓ-KAJOS

1979Gyula Kálmánné KAJOS

1944Árpád Ferenc TUBOLY

1961Miklós Pál OLÁH

1944János KISS

1966Jánosné GONDOS

1943Ferencné DÉTÁRI

1938Tamás KELEMEN

1979György BRULICH

1947Ernő TAKÁCS

1944Mónika Judit NYULNÉ MÁTYÁS

1973János MISZTI

1949Alfrédné VINCZE

1939Lionel MATYI

1974Jánosné CZUDOR

1945Gyöngyi GAVALLÉR

1973Tiborné FEJÉR

1930Beáta VANDRUSNÉ REINPRECHT

1950Andrásné CSORDÁS

1936Elemér MAGYAR

1956Károly BALÁZS

1937György BLASKOVICS

1938Sándor Ferenc CSIZMADIA

1936László IRSÁN

1964Barbalics István

Budapest

12/12/2022

09/01/2023

2,000

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

Menu

KESZEI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

KESZEI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

LEXI