CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 mars 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 } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sBA6BCE26 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7D18490B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; 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 } .s38800CDB { width:37.55pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s50F90984 { width:149.75pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; 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 } .s72832412 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 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 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 5286/25 Éva VINCZE against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26   March 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 13   February 2025, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. THE LAW    Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) 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 prosecution. In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings lasted less than five and a half years for two levels of jurisdiction which cannot be considered excessive in the particular circumstances of the case. The Court therefore 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 applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention. The Court has examined the application and 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 application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2026.     Attila Teplán   Stéphane Pisani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) 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 5286/25 13/02/2025 Éva VINCZE 1968   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 19/11/2019   14/05/2025   5 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 26 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