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 } .sCD0BD88E { height:60.15pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .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. 21592/16 Levente TETLÁK and Ors Gabor TETLÁK 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   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 /household (in euros) [1]     21592/16 11/04/2016 Levente Tetlák 25/03/1978 Örs Gábor Tetlák 31/08/1976   Honthegyi Gizella Budapest   04/01/2019 24/05/2018 3,000     25251/16 27/04/2016 Benjamin Pálne Tóth 14/07/1946   Vidéki László Szolnok   13/12/2018 02/10/2018 11,000     26935/16 10/05/2016 Tibor Turi 17/11/1961 Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke Budapest   29/11/2018 15/06/2018 2,500     28595/16 18/05/2016 Erika Veizer 05/08/1967         23/11/2018 22/06/2018 2,000     32900/16 25/05/2016 (8 applicants) Szilvia Borka 22/05/1974 Istvánné Gulyás 11/02/1942 Sándor Józsefné Iván 16/07/1958 Anita Kerekes 14/02/1975   János Attiláné Szűcs 02/03/1965   Edit Tóvizi 27/09/1959   Household Péter Koós 16/01/1977 Szilvia Koós-Hevesi 29/06/1977   Grád András Gusztáv Budapest   07/12/2018 19/10/2018 3,000     41882/16 14/07/2016 Anikó Mező 08/03/1966 Pivarnyikné Juhász Emőke Budapest   20/12/2018 22/06/2018 6,000     45308/16 27/07/2016 (3 applicants) Household Béla Kovács 26/05/1984 Béláné Kovács 28/01/1963 Rita Mária Kovács 17/06/1985   Vidéki László Szolnok   17/12/2018 25/07/2018 4,000     47755/16 05/08/2016 (6 applicants) Géza Sinkó 28/07/1969 Istvanne Kelemen 17/11/1963 Gizella Szénásiné Bagi 24/09/1976 Imre Szénási 27/05/1976 Sandor Csákó 12/11/1979 Monika Csákóné Baráth 29/05/1979 Kecskés Ákos Zoltán Hódmezővásárhely   05/12/2018 25/09/2018 1,100     54197/16 02/09/2016 István Paksi 03/06/1951 Mihály Paksi 12/10/1955 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings - 03/12/2018 24/07/2018 1,300   71212/16 18/11/2016 (3 applicants) Hajnalka Takács 21/02/1975   Household József Csík 21/07/1968 Piroska Oláhné Lengyel 30/10/1937     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings - 27/11/2018 26/06/2018 8,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.