CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 mai 2022

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5AAEE4F1 { width:148.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 11193/21 Gyöngyvér ANTALNÉ BOTÁR and Others against Hungary (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 application lodged on 29   January 2021, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having regard to the letter of the applicants’ representative dated 30   March 2022; Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants 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”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. On 30 March 2022 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Margit Bábelné Dálnoki, Ferenc Barna, Lajos Honyák, István Kővári, Anna Méhészné Kis, Henrikné Morvay and András Valaska withdrew their complaints. In regard to the remaining applicants, the Court received the friendly ‑ settlement declaration, signed by the parties, under which those applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amount detailed in the appended table. This amount 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 this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake 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 LAW In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicants Margit   Bábelné Dálnoki, Ferenc Barna, Lajos Honyák, István Kővári, Anna   Méhészné Kis, Henrikné Morvay and András Valaska 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 their regard. Moreover, the Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the Government and the remaining applicants. 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 these complaints. 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 to the applicants Margit   Bábelné Dálnoki, Ferenc Barna, Lajos Honyák, István Kővári, Anna Méhészné Kis, Henrikné Morvay and András Valaska; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in regard to the remaining applicants in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2022.     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 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] 11193/21 29/01/2021 (64 applicants) Gyöngyvér ANTALNÉ BOTÁR 1949 Andrea BODOR 1976 Gábor Csaba BODOR 1979 István CSEKE 1962 Lajos DOMBI 1943 János ENDRÉSZ 1955 Andrásné FEKETE 1954 Péter FLÓDUNG 1946 József FŐBUSZ 1938 Attila GÁL 1949 Jenő GÁL 1953 Mihály GÉRCZEI 1948 Árpád István GULYÁS 1948 István HALÁSZ 1959 Gyula HÁZI 1929 Józsefné HORVÁTH 1944 Lajosné KARDOS 1938 József KASZONYI 1941 Mária KELLÓNÉ MAJOR 1946 Pál KÉRI 1950 Sándor KERTÉSZ 1952 Dóra Veronika KOVÁCS 1972 Miklós LUKÁCS 1955 László MIKÓ 1952 János NÉMETH 1960 László NÉMETH 1957 Mihály OBBÁGY 1958 Ottó PÁMER 1944 Józsefné PAPP 1936 Sándor PAPP 1965 Klára PÁSZTORNÉ MÁLNÁSI 1967 Miklósné PATAKI 1945 János PÉCZI 1949 Csaba PONGRÁCZ 1964 György RÖVID 1966 István SÁNKA 1956 Ferenc STEFANITS 1959 Nándor SÜLE 1956 Albertné SZABÓ 1935 András SZABÓ 1957 Ferenc SZABÓ 1944 József SZAKÁCS 1940 Károly SZAMOSFALVI 1953 József SZEMŐK [1] 1931 Szilárd SZEMŐK [2] 1959 Dezső SZIKRA 1945 Vincéné TAKÁCS 1952 Zsuzsanna TENDLINÉ CSEKE 1967 Árpád TÓTH 1955 Péter TRÁBERT 1953 Rudolf TURZA 1956 Judit UDVARDINÉ DR. ERDŐS 1950 Józsefné VÍGH 1937 Ferenc Péter VODNYÁNSZKY 1944 Endre Ádám ZELENYÁNSZKI 1943   Household Endre József SZELE 1949 Endréné SZELE 1953     Applicants who withdrew their complaints :   Margit BÁBELNÉ DÁLNOKI 1958 Ferenc BARNA 1956 Lajos HONYÁK 1963 István KŐVÁRI 1959 Anna MÉHÉSZNÉ KIS 1959 Henrikné MORVAY 1959 András VALASKA 1945   Bartos Ernő Biatorbágy Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings 05/04/2022 06/04/2022 9,100                                                                                                                                                                                                                             9,100             No award.     [1] Died on 24/08/2021. His heir is Szilárd Szemők. [2] He is applicant in his own right and also as the heir of József Szemők. [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.