CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 février 2026

.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 } .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 } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sCC7380B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .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. 18168/25 Szabina SVECZ against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19   February 2026 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 applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representatives 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”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Court received friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts 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 these amounts within the above ‑ mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake 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 LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. 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 the applications. 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; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2026.     Attila Teplán   Stéphane Pisani   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 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 (in euros) [1]     18168/25 29/05/2025 Szabina SVECZ 1978   Nagy Judit Szilvia Budapest   10/12/2025 14/01/2026 10,900     18861/25 30/05/2025 Mária REGÁSZ 1961       Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 21/01/2026 02/10/2025 6,500     19599/25 03/06/2025 János FINFERA 1983   Finta Eszter Klára Budapest   21/01/2026 04/12/2025 5,200     19982/25 27/06/2025 Ádám HORVÁTH 1988   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 21/01/2026 11/11/2025 2,700     20513/25 30/06/2025 Lajos LAKATOS 1994   Frank Evelyn Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 16/01/2026 06/11/2025 2,600     20628/25 16/06/2025 Erika GOMÁNY 1971   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 13/01/2026 13/10/2025 3,300     21244/25 03/07/2025 Melinda KONKOLY 1983   Cseterics Krisztián Budapest   16/12/2025 30/10/2025 4,100     22077/25 14/07/2025 András KRUPA 1980   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 23/01/2026 26/11/2025 2,600     25242/25 07/08/2025 Sándor RÁCZ 1994   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 21/01/2026 03/12/2025 2,600   31439/25 26/09/2025 Dániel VÉGH 2002   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 15/01/2026 15/12/2025 3,900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.