CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 décembre 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 } .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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .s7C2C4941 { width:149.75pt; 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 } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 12488/25 János RÉMAI and Others against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18   December 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16   April 2025, 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 P. Váczi, a lawyer practising in Győr. 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 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 these 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 payments 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 and Csatári and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 18514/24, 20 May 2025). 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, 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 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 22 January 2026.     Attila Teplán   Stéphane Pisani   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] 12488/25 16/04/2025 (89 applicants) János RÉMAI 1976 József BAKONYI 1947 Gyula BALOGH 1958 Máté BÁN 1976 Istvánné BATÁRI 1944 István BOGDÁN 1982 Istvánné BOGDÁN 1957 Istvánné BOKOR 1953 János BRATENGEIER 1966 Veronika BURUNCZ 1973 Flórián CIBI 1957 József CSÁSZÁR 1941 Eszter CSEHI 1976 László CSER 1958 Tibor CZAKÓ 1954 János CZICZLAVICZ 1966 Árpád DARAB 1950 Jánosné DUSNOKI 1940 Jánosné DUSNOKI 1961 Jánosné FARKAS 1953 Lászlóné FARKAS 1953 Lászlóné FEKETE 1952 Viktor FODOR 1983 Antal FÓRIZS 1972 Zsolt GARBACZ 1974 Gyuláné GÁSPÁR 1940 Éva Noémi GERZSENYI 1982 István Zsolt HAJNÁCZKI 1971 Józsefné HALÁSZ 1963   Attiláné HORVÁTH 1959 István HORVÁTH 1970 János HORVÁTH 1974 Anna Mária ILLÉS 1977 Lajos ILLÉS 1956 Mónika JÁGER 1972 Lajosné JAKAB 1958 Istvánné KÁNYAI 1939 Gáborné KISS 1965 Jánosné KISS 1939 Csaba KORONDI 1947 Imre KÖRÖSI 1961 Imréné KÖRÖSI 1966 Gábor KOVÁTS 1975 Istvánné LAJTOS 1945 Imréné LÉNÁRT 1959 László István LUKÁCS 1946 Lászlóné MAGYAR 1954 Katalin MAKAI 1953 József MIHÁLYI 1945 Ágnes MIKUSNÉ NÉMETH 1953 Miklósné MINYA 1944 Béla MOLNÁR 1963 Ferenc MOLNÁR 1950 Gyula MOLNÁR 1971 Tiborné MOLNÁR 1965 Ferenc NAGY 1964 János NAGY 1968 László NAGY 1954 Ferencné NAGYVÁTI 1951 Ferenc NÁSZ 1957 Csabáné NÉMETH D. 1957 Géza OLÁH 1964   István PÁLINKÁS 1966 Istvánné PAPP 1965 János PAPP 1955 Mártonné PAPP 1949 Lászlóné PERL 1941 László PETŐ 1959 Ervin PUSKÁS 1979 Jánosné RÁCZ 1952 Kornélia RAUF 1980 András REKENYE 1951 Sándorné SÁRKÁNY 1947 Gyula SCHILLER 1954 Jánosné SCHULTEISZ 1955 József Ferenc SITARSZKI 1959 Mihály SZABÓ 1950 Mihályné SZABÓ 1972   Anita SZAUTNER 1973 Miklósné SZÉLES 1958 Yves Tibor SZILÁGYI 1970 László SZLOBODA 1961 Józsefné SZOMBAT 1956 Anna TAKÁCS 1944 Attiláné TELEK 1964 Éva Jozefin TELEKINÉ RENDES 1965 Attila VARGA 1978 Kálmánné VERCZ 1958 Zoltán János VINCZE 1964   Váczi Péter Győr 03/11/2025 17/11/2025 200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.