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 } .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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s2006C909 { width:12.98%; 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 } .s8AAD60A6 { width:26.12%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA49E107F { width:14.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s70739193 { width:13.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s92045DA4 { width:20.3%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF314C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sBB8C798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .s9CF8EDE4 { width:12.98%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s97B27E9 { width:26.12%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; 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 } .sE0C227BC { width:14.48%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1A81B8C3 { width:13.06%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCB59DA9A { width:20.3%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 24972/24 Mihály VIZI and Others against Hungary (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 application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 26   August 2024, 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 Ms F. Pintér, 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 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 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 12 March 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/ household (in euros) [1] 24972/24 26/08/2024 (224 applicants) Mihály VIZI 1944 János SZABÓ 1957 Lajosné PÁZMÁNDI 1952 János István ZAKAR 1945 Lukács SZILÁGYI 1955 Mária Gizella ÖRDÖGNÉ CZEGLÉDI 1959 Benjamin NYÍRI 1957 István Miklósné SZABÓ 1960 Zoltán GONDA 1942 Gyula MÁRTA 1931 Tímea NÉMETI 1978 István BAJZÁTH 1936 Imre SZŰCS 1955 Zoltánné SZIRÁKI 1955 Antal FÜLÖP 1945 Illésné GONDA 1954 Illésné KOVÁCS 1957 László ÁBRAHÁM 1961 Szilveszter KECSKÉS 1977 Tibor LUKÁCSI 1955 Jenő NAGY 1941 Jánosné PÉLI 1933 József TÓTH 1968 Andrea LAKATOSNÉ TÖRÖK 1972 András FEDOR 1958 Terézia HEGEDŰSNÉ MARKÓ 1969 Nóra LUKÁCSI 1982 Andrásné BUDAI 1966 Imréné BUDAI 1936 Henrietta CSÍKOSNÉ HEMRIK 1979 István GÁL 1942 Pál SZABÓ 1944 Imréné KORMOS 1933 Józsefné GUBANCSIK 1949 András KÜRI 1954 János KORMÁNY 1960 Sándor BOROS 1935 Sándor PAPP 1959 Angéla SLÉDERNÉ PÉNTEK 1976 Géza BARANYA 1976 Imréné TÓTH 1964 Albertné BORÓK 1951 István VIZI 1959 Mihályné TÓTH 1939 Ágnes KOSARASNÉ TELEK 1976 Tibor FÓNAGY 1975 Imre SZABÓ 1958 Emil MAJZIK 1955 András BÉRES 1944 Jenőné BERÉNYI 1944 Gyuláné CSILLIK 1954 László NÉMETH 1956 Endre BALÁZSI 1958 Mihályné FEKETE 1955 Mária Julianna PULAINÉ BARTA 1956 Albert PATONAI 1954 Dezsőné DOBOS 1960 Ferenc VARGA 1948 Józsefné OLÁH 1933 Miklósné KOVÁCS 1950 Ferenc TÓTH 1979 Andrásné LÁDI 1950 Istvánné BODÓ 1955 Miklós MARKÓ 1959 Andrásné MAJOR 1942 József GYURKÓ 1970 Károly KRISTÁLY 1964 István KOCSMÁR 1971 István SZŰCS 1960 Istvánné TÓTH 1944 Józsefné POLYÁK 1943 Istvánné SZABÓ 1953 István HADRIK 1957 István CZAKÓ 1943 Jánosné RABI NAGY 1948 József VÉKONY 1960 András CSOMOR 1941 Ferencné TÓTH 1959 Sándor BALLA 1973 Mihály BORBÉLY 1953 Imre CSILLIK 1937 Csilla SZABÓ-SZŰCS 1970 Jánosné NAGY 1937 Lászlóné KALMÁR 1955 György HÉJA 1941 Gáborné HÉJA 1939 Sándor ASZTALOS 1977 István BODÓ 1958 Imre PALÁGYI 1940   Vendel SZATMÁRI 1940 Tamás PÉNTEK 1950 József VARGA 1950 Ildikó GYŐRINÉ PÉNTEK 1967 Pál DÖMÖK 1953 Józsefné SZABÓ 1943 Ferenc BALÁZS 1967 Imréné TÓTH 1944 Béla KEREKES 1944 Lajosné CSAJBÓK 1938 Marianna JUHÁSZ 1968 Gabriella ANDRÁSINÉ KOVÁCS 1976 Csaba Tibor CSÍKHEGYI 1947 Mihály KOVÁCS 1951 Zoltán NAGY 1974 Ignác LOVÁSZ 1941 Tünde BOZÓKINÉ KATONA 1981 Sándor Lászlóné FEJES 1946 Sándor Lászlóné KANYÓ 1947 Attila VITÁRIZS 1973 Zoltán BUKTA 1970 Jánosné CSINGER 1955 István CSEH 1944 Kálmán NAGY 1967 Gáspárné HÉJA 1946 János TÓTH 1971 János ÖRDÖG 1970 Mihály BALOG 1953 Imre TÓTH 1968 Rózsa Ágota PETHE 1948 József BAJZÁTH 1936 Zoltán KISS 1955 Károly SZÖLLŐSI 1961 János NAGY 1951 Endre KOCSIS 1954 Imréné TUGYI 1967 János KOVÁCS 1965 József JUHÁSZ 1934 Józsefné TÓTH 1957 Éva Rozália TÓTH 1961 Lajosné VÍZI 1962 Béla DANI 1963 Sebestyén KOVÁCS 1942 István RIMÓCZI 1944 Anikó PAKSI 1980 Ignác BALOGH 1941 László SAFRANYIK 1959 László HAJDÚ 1957 Zoltán BODA 1940 János ORSÓ 1959 László MOLNÁR 1944 Attila SZIRÁKI 1970 Józsefné TÓTH 1953 Mihály SZŐKE 1959 Ferenc ÁDÁM 1955 János DOROGI 1951 Sándor Gusztávné BEZERÉDY 1946 Béla TAKÁCS 1960 Erika SZABÓ 1973 Kálmánné NAGY 1949 László SZEKERES 1968 Ferenc ÁRVAI 1962   Ferenc PATONAI 1949 Kálmán SZABÓ 1933 Zsuzsanna BALOGH 1963 István HÉJA 1940 Józsefné TÓTH 1941 Károlyné POMÁZI 1948 István Lajos EGYED 1957 Attila BALLA 1965 Pálné KOVÁCS 1942 Lajos TÓTH 1958 Dénesné TELEK 1948 János VARGA 1945 Károlyné PAKAI 1947 László TÓTH 1969 László BÁLINT 1954 István VÁMOS 1958 István SZABÓ 1955 Péterné RETTER 1960 Tiborné TÓTH 1966 Kálmán RÁCZ 1960 Károlyné JÓNÁS 1947 Lászlóné BATHÓ 1958 Sándorné TOLVAJ 1954 Gellértné DRÁVUCZ 1948 Józsefné DANYI 1954 István MARKÓ 1953 Edina HEMRIK 1981 Ferenc VARGA 1975 Andrásné SZINOK 1947 Mária FEJES 1970 Lászlóné GOMBÁR 1943   Károlyné BAJZÁTH 1944 Ferencné OROS 1952 István BARANYA 1941 Bertalanné BENEDEK 1941 Albert MÁTÉ 1961 Imréné ASZTALOS 1948 Attila CSATÓ 1979 Mihály TÓTH 1945 András VIGH 1951 Géza Elekné SIPOS 1958 Istvánné VIDRA 1954 Endréné ASZTALOS 1949 Imréné ALAPI 1962 Gerzson István NÉMETH 1946 Olga NÉGYESI 1983 Pál BACSÓ 1945 István PINCZI 1959 Margit VINCZÉNÉ SALLAI 1957 Andrásné NÁSZ 1962 Ferenc MÁRTON 1957 Józsefné CSATÁRI KISS 1947 Jánosné SZABÓ 1964 Tamás DOMÁNY 1978 János SZABÓ 1960 Sándorné MOLNÁR 1937 István VATAI 1952 Tünde HORVÁTHNÉ JAKOBICZ 1979 Zoltánné LIPTÁK 1960 Jenőné SZABÓ 1942 Kálmán MÁRTA 1947 Sándorné SZÖLLŐSI 1950 Ferenc GÓCZA 1950 Jenő TELEK 1933 Jánosné HERCZEGH 1938   Household Lajos Józsefné BALOGH 1953 Lajos József BALOGH 1946   Household János BALOGH 1956 Jánosné BALOGH 1956   Household Lajos VIZI 1959 Lajosné VIZI 1941   Household Gyula VÁLÓCZI 1970 Gyula Sándorné VÁLÓCZI 1948 Pintér Fruzsina Győr 09/12/2025 15/01/2026 200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant