CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 septembre 2025

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB81C5FD1 { width:141.42pt; 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 31779/24 Ilona Bianca FILIPOVICS against Hungary and 2 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18   September 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Gediminas Sagatys , President ,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , judges , and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representative is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). Complaints under Article   13 of the Convention, based on the same facts, were also communicated. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the protractedness of the proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the applicants’ case has so far lasted less than five years at two levels of jurisdiction. This duration cannot yet be considered excessive. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints The applicants also raised other complaints under Article 13 of the Convention, arguing that no effective remedy was available to them in regard to the alleged protractedness of the criminal proceedings conducted against them. The Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles   34 and   35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 9 October 2025.     Attila Teplán   Gediminas Sagatys   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Other complaints under well-established case-law     31779/24 04/10/2024 Ilona Bianca FILIPOVICS 1994   Frank Evelyn Budapest 11/09/2020   pending   More than 4 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 22 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings     31780/24 04/10/2024 József Zoltán FILIPOVICS 1992   Frank Evelyn Budapest 11/09/2020   pending   More than 4 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 22 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings     31782/24 04/10/2024 József Rudolf BÁNFI 1986   Frank Evelyn Budapest 11/09/2020   pending   More than 4 year(s) and 10   month(s) and 22 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings