CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 janvier 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 40/18 István VIGH against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31   January 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table. 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”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Court received friendly-settlement declarations under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will 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 undertake 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 LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. 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; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 21 February 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   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 Date of birth / Date of registration Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     40/18 13/12/2017 István Vigh 15/04/1943 Baráth Lívia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings   19/12/2018 19/12/2018 2,500     140/18 27/12/2017 Károly Nagy 13/04/1970 Baráth Lívia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings   03/12/2018 19/12/2018 3,000     3285/18 10/01/2018 Dezső Lászlóné Sólyom 05/12/1955 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings   18/12/2018 06/09/2018 800     3287/18 09/01/2018 Sára Völgyiné Zörgő 23/02/1975 Baráth Lívia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings     03/12/2018 19/12/2018 2,500     7009/18 30/01/2018 Magdolna Márta Pető 12/10/1953 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings   20/12/2018 25/07/2018 6,000     7764/18 30/06/2015 Zoltán Várhegyi 22/06/1958 Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke Budapest     10/12/2018 13/06/2018 2,000     8107/18 05/02/2018 Mónika Szilasi-Gróf 27/03/1979 Baráth Lívia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings   21/12/2018 19/12/2018 2,000     8688/18 07/02/2018   Hajdúsági Sütödék Zrt 01/04/1992 Halmos Tamás Ferenc Nyíregyháza     22/11/2018 05/09/2018 10,000     21421/18 23/04/2018 Hajnalka Kovácsné Molnár 26/05/1979 Baráth Lívia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings   07/01/2019 19/12/2018 2,000   26741/18 30/05/2018   Integral-Bau Kereskedelmi és Szolgáltató Bt. 15/06/2001 Nagy Gergely Tamás Budapest   27/11/2018 20/11/2018 2,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.