Lexploria

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 46256/22 Zsuzsanna TAKÃCS and Others

against Hungary

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 May 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Alena PolÃ¡ÄkovÃ¡ , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,

and Attila TeplÃ¡n, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 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 applicantsâ€™ complaints under Article 6 Â§ 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (â€œthe Governmentâ€).

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 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 Â§ 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 Courtâ€™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 Governmentâ€™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 Â§ 1 (c) enables it to strike a case out of its list if:

â€œ... for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applicationâ€.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 Â§ 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, Â§Â§ 75 â€‘ 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, GazsÃ³ v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015).

Noting the admissions contained in the Governmentâ€™s declaration as well as the amount of compensation proposed â€“ which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases â€“ the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 Â§ 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 Â§ 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 Â§ 2 of the Convention ( JosipoviÄ‡ 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 Governmentâ€™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 Â§ 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 25 May 2023.

Attila TeplÃ¡n Alena PolÃ¡ÄkovÃ¡ Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 Â§ 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicantâ€™s name

Year of birth

Representativeâ€™s name and location

Date of receipt of Governmentâ€™s declaration

Date of receipt of applicantâ€™s comments, if any

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

per applicant/household

(in euros) [1]

46256/22

21/09/2022

(97 applicants)

Zsuzsanna TAKÃCS

1954JÃ¡nosnÃ© ACÃ‰L

1930IstvÃ¡nnÃ© AMBRUS

1952ZoltÃ¡n AMBRUS

1942MihÃ¡ly BAGI

1956IstvÃ¡n BARBALICS

1955Zsolt BEGALA

1960JÃ³zsef BELSÅ

1946GyÃ¶rgy BESENYEI

1944Zsuzsanna BESSENYEI

1956TamÃ¡s BIRÃ“

1982IstvÃ¡nnÃ© BÃRÃ“

1941JÃ³zsef BORKA

1970JÃ³zsefnÃ© BUJDOSÃ“

1945Sarolta BUKOVSZKINÃ‰ LENDÃ‰R

1939JÃ¡nosnÃ© CSABANKÃ“

1936MÃ¡rtonnÃ© CSÃNYI

1935PÃ©ter SÃ¡ndor DARU

1947GÃ¡bor DELI

1971BorbÃ¡la ECSEDYNÃ‰ RÃ‰VFALVI

1951ZoltÃ¡n Ã‰VINGER

1934Ãgnes ErzsÃ©bet FEKÃ‰NÃ‰ LÃ‰VAI

1943Zsolt GyÃ¶rgynÃ© FEKETE

1957Ã‰va Anna FERENCZI

1951PÃ©ter GÃSPÃR

1975PÃ©ter GIDAI

1947IstvÃ¡nnÃ© GÃ–RÃ–G

1948BÃ©la GYÃ–RGY

1943Imre GYURIK

1945ElemÃ©rnÃ© GYURINDÃK

1926Ilona MÃ¡ria HOCKNÃ‰ NAGY

1946IstvÃ¡n HOLLER

1950PÃ¡l HOLLÃ“

1940ErzsÃ©bet HOMOKINÃ‰ BARACSKAI

1960IstvÃ¡nnÃ© HORVÃTH

1942MihÃ¡ly HORVÃTH

1957SÃ¡ndor JÃNOS

1952ZoltÃ¡n JANOVICS

1951Albert JUHÃSZ

1942GyÃ¶rgynÃ© KAPOSVÃRI

1948Zsuzsanna KARVALICSNÃ‰ MOLNÃR

1952GÃ¡bor KÃ‰KESI

1957Gyula KEMPF

1947Zsuzsanna Paula KÃ‰VAI

1949Andrea KIRÃLYNÃ‰ SÃNDOR

1978ImrÃ©nÃ© KISS

1940JÃ³zsef KISS

1932LÃ¡szlÃ³nÃ© KÅRÃ–SI

1944LÃ¡szlÃ³nÃ© KÃ“SA

1943Ã‰va KRISTÃ“F

1939ErzsÃ©bet LUGOSINÃ‰ KOLESZÃR

1957BÃ©lÃ¡nÃ© LUKÃCS

1946MiklÃ³s MihÃ¡ly MAKAI

1929Julianna MAROSI

1940ZoltÃ¡nnÃ© MÃTYÃS

1950Ferenc JÃ³zsefnÃ© MIHALIK

1944AttilÃ¡nÃ© MOHÃCSI

1946JÃ³zsef NAGY

1937Ãgnes NÃ‰METH

1940Gyula Ãlmos OROSZ

1940Gyula Tibor OROSZ

1937Ilona PÃLFINÃ‰ BARANKOVICS

1966Ãkos PILISSY

1947Gabriella RÃ‰VAY

1929Judit RIBÃNÃ‰ PINTÃ‰R

1968Rita SCHWARCZBAUER

1976Ã‰va MÃ¡ria SUDÃR

1938DÃ³ra TÃNCZOSNÃ‰ SZATHMÃRY

1985AndrÃ¡s TELCS

1956Judit TENGERDINÃ‰ BALOG

1947Attila TERMES

1946BalÃ¡zs TÃ“TH

1972Imre TÃ“TH

1944SÃ¡ndor TÃ“TH

1936Ãgoston TRAPP

1940JÃ³zsef ÃdÃ¡m VARGA

1947LÃ¡szlÃ³ VEBER

1934Household

AndrÃ¡s BAKÃ“

1946Household

Antal ZAKARIÃS

1930Barbalics IstvÃ¡n

Budapest

20/02/2023

12/03/2023

2,000

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

Menu

TAKÁCS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

TAKÁCS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

LEXI