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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s8A7BF494 { width:5.88%; 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 } .sBD8DB1C0 { width:12.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sAA0B9CB5 { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF5AD949C { width:14.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE707D407 { width:13.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s3310F964 { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66A02243 { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s124DC505 { width:5.88%; 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 } .s23F9FC52 { width:12.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s41C5CDEA { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sD7065C89 { width:14.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF8ADF3C9 { width:13.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAA572E2C { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s82B0FB4B { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .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. 25717/21 István ZSIFKOVICS and Others against Hungary and 2 other applications (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 applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications 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”). 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. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications 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 applications 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 these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook 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 applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations. 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 cases 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 declarations 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 applications (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 applications (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 June 2022.     Attila Teplán   Alena Poláčková   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 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/household (in euros) [1]     25717/21 07/05/2021 (29 applicants) István ZSIFKOVICS 1953 Mariann ANTOSNÉ SZÍVA 1956 Szilveszter Tibor BALOG 1954 József BECZŐK 1942 Zoltánné BEDŐK 1940 Miklós BERTALAN 1950 Lajos Károlyné BÖDÖCS 1958 Imre CSENGERI 1955 Lászlóné CSIZMAZIA 1950 Lajosné GROÁK 1941 Csabáné KALUCZA 1946 Zoltán KERTÉSZ 1948 Veronika KRAUZIERITZNÉ LADOS 1961 Lászlóné NÉMETH 1937 Szilárd Gergely OROVICA 1977 Károlyné ÓVÁRI 1946 Ferencné PAPP 1942 László SOLYMOS 1947 Gézáné SZABÓ 1941 Károly SZABÓ 1952 Tamás Gyula SZARVAS 1946 Vendelné SZŰCS 1947 Mihályné UHRIN 1969 Csaba Lajos VÖLGYI 1955 József ZSIDEI 1958 Ferencné ZSIGOVICS 1969 Zoltán ZSOLDOS 1977 Household Gergely NAGY 1957 István NAGY 1954   Barbalics István Budapest 12/04/2022 23/04/2022 9,100     35928/21 30/06/2021 (14 applicants) Zsuzsanna Zsófia VISONTAI 1971 Miklós SZIVA 1954 József MAY 1970 István FÖLDI 1930 József SZEMETI 1952 Ferencné SZEPESI 1946 György SZABÓ 1953 Józsefné ALMÁSI 1938 Tibor NAGY 1960 Katalin VÁRADI 1967 Miklós Ferencné BŐLE 1959 Ernő BÍRÓ 1951 László ÓDOR 1951 László PORDÁNY 1951   Barbalics István Budapest 13/04/2022 23/04/2022 9,100     46670/21 08/09/2021 (21 applicants) Géza VADÁSZ 1943 Kálmán BENDE 1937 Lajos GULYÁS 1953 Lászlóné ERDŐS 1965 Zoltán ZÁDORI 1954 Ferencné IHÁSZ 1954 Lajosné EGYED 1939 László BOROS 1947 Attila FERENC 1950 Kálmán KASZÁS 1961 András ERDŐHÁTI 1961 István József BEZZEG 1934 Lívia Mária STOMPNÉ KOLLÁR 1957 István TÓTH 1959 József BÖRZSEI 1959 János TAKÁCS 1943 Mátyás STIPKOVITS 1951 Tibor PINTYE 1958 Ferenc István KOVÁCS 1952 Márta SZELÉNÉ VARGA 1964 Tibor GÖMÖRI 1961 Barbalics István Budapest 14/04/2022 23/04/2022 9,100   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.