CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 février 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sC1A20A0D { width:14.06%; 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 } .s511722C8 { width:23.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s389B4756 { width:11.28%; 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 } .s4343316F { width:14.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9B73C5B1 { width:22.5%; 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 } .s32BAB4E { width:14.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85E160E { width:23.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB90A4095 { width:11.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A5F310D { width:14.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6BEEE4C { width:22.5%; 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. 37413/22 Lajos KESZEI and Others against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2   February 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25   July 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 applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). On 18 October 2022 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Ms Antalné Golács withdrew her complaint. THE LAW The Court concludes that the applicant Ms Antalné Golács 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 her regard. Moreover, 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 the remaining applicants’ 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 §   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 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 Government’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 §   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 case 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 declaration 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 application (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 application (Article   37 §   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 §   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 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 of Ms Antalné Golács; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 March 2023.     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 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 (in euros) [1] 37413/22 25/07/2022 (89 applicants) Lajos KESZEI 1939   Gabor VITÁRIS 1943   László KAMMEL 1944   István RAJCSÁNYI 1949   Imre ERDŐS 1946   Zoltán TUJNER 1948   József KOVÁCS 1958   Lajos KOVÁCS 1943   Amália NAGYNÉ BAKOS 1945   Antal BÁCSKAY 1933   Éva Emőke SZENTE 1981   Klára RÉVÉSZ 1945   János GAZDAG 1953   Gábor Ferenc SZALAI 1936   Tibor VARGA 1958   József HURIK 1965   Edina HOLLÓS 1968   József Árpád PIRI 1951   Attila Lászlóné BÁN 1940   Attila LIPNICZKY 1969   Andor PARÁDI 1927   János Csaba PÁLFI 1967   Tiborné MOLNÁR 1945   Ferenc MÁRKUS 1936   József HORVÁTH 1945   Attiláné PÉK 1944   Zita CSERMÁKNÉ JESZENSZKY 1940   János István BÓTH 1949   Tibor László KEPPEL 1942   Józsefné KÖHLER 1957   Ottó HÉRA 1939   Mónika KESZLER 1974   Barnabás BALOGH 1944   Károly HAJDU 1942   Ildikó KOVÁCSNÉ SZABÓ 1983   László Tibor SAMU 1963   Attila MOLNÁR 1942   Lajosné VIDOSICS 1940   Noémi Mária KOCZKA 1971   Gyula Álmosné OROSZ 1943   Edit MOLNÁRNÉ OROSZ 1975   József PETES 1946   Ottóné MILEDER 1932   András Kálmánné NÉMETH 1951   Imre TAKÁCS 1944   Lajosné BARTI 1953   Györgyné BLASKOVICS 1940   Istvánné ZIMONYI 1948   Sándor Ferencné CSIZMADIA 1942   Józsefné KELEMEN 1937   Ferenc MOHÁCSI 1943   Viktória Mária EGRI-MOHÁCSY 1972   Jenőné MOHÁCSY 1942   Ildikó BERCSÉNYINÉ EITL 1974   Tamás Attila MOHÁCSI 1975   Lászlóné NÉMETH 1943   József HABENICHT 1946   Judit GRESZLERNÉ FÜLE 1979   Judit Gizella VÁMOSI 1951   László SZENTÁGOTAI 1937   Gábor BALOGH 1960   József SZABÓ 1956   István Pál DEMETER 1948   Lajos VIDOSICS 1938   Ilona NEDLER 1945   Erika ORSÓ-KAJOS 1979   Gyula Kálmánné KAJOS 1944   Árpád Ferenc TUBOLY 1961   Miklós Pál OLÁH 1944   János KISS 1966   Jánosné GONDOS 1943   Ferencné DÉTÁRI 1938   Tamás KELEMEN 1979   György BRULICH 1947   Ernő TAKÁCS 1944   Mónika Judit NYULNÉ MÁTYÁS 1973   János MISZTI 1949   Alfrédné VINCZE 1939   Lionel MATYI 1974   Jánosné CZUDOR 1945   Gyöngyi GAVALLÉR 1973   Tiborné FEJÉR 1930   Beáta VANDRUSNÉ REINPRECHT 1950   Andrásné CSORDÁS 1936   Elemér MAGYAR 1956   Károly BALÁZS 1937   György BLASKOVICS 1938   Sándor Ferenc CSIZMADIA 1936   László IRSÁN 1964   Barbalics István Budapest 12/12/2022 09/01/2023 2,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.