CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 mars 2026
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0326DEC002042225
- Date
- 26 mars 2026
- Publication
- 26 mars 2026
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Dix requérants ont saisi la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) contre la Hongrie en invoquant l'article 6 § 1 de la Convention (durée excessive des procédures pénales). Les griefs ont été communiqués au gouvernement hongrois. Les parties ont conclu des accords de règlement amiable prévoyant le versement d'indemnités par l'État hongrois en échange du désistement des requérants.
Procédure
La CEDH a examiné conjointement les dix affaires en raison de leur similarité. Les déclarations de règlement amiable ont été reçues, prévoyant le paiement d'indemnités par la Hongrie dans un délai de trois mois, avec application d'intérêts en cas de retard. Le paiement constitue la résolution définitive des affaires.
Question juridique
La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme est-elle compétente pour examiner des affaires ayant fait l'objet d'un règlement amiable entre les parties ?
Solution
source officielleStrike out des affaires conformément à l'article 39 de la Convention, après avoir constaté que le règlement amiable respecte les droits de l'homme définis par la Convention et ses protocoles.
Texte intégral
.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sAB95A5CB { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#424242 } .sD8909BE6 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 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 } .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. 20422/25 Gábor BARABÁS against Hungary and 9 other applications (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 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 16 April 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]     20422/25 16/06/2025 Gábor BARABÁS 1979   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 03/02/2026 15/10/2025 2,600     20652/25 18/06/2025 László BALOGH 1989   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 13/02/2026 07/11/2025 2,600     21384/25 01/07/2025 Krisztina FARKAS 1979   Fahidi Gergely Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 13/02/2026 11/11/2025 3,900     21650/25 10/07/2025 Renátó Aldó HLAVÁCS 1991   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 04/02/2026 17/11/2025 2,600     21671/25 09/07/2025 József GALANISZ 1974   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 26/11/2025 04/02/2026 1,400     22470/25 14/07/2025 Sándor Ákos FÜRST 1956   Fazekas Tamás Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 04/02/2026 16/11/2025 11,800     22854/25 21/07/2025 Attila MÁRKUS 1991   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 12/02/2026 20/11/2025 2,600     22855/25 21/07/2025 Attila HORVÁTH 1980   Frank Evelyn Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 21/01/2026 03/02/2026 2,700     23466/25 23/07/2025 Róbert GILYÁN 1979   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 04/02/2026 20/11/2025 4,600   25551/25 04/08/2025 Sándor ÁCS 2002   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 05/02/2026 02/12/2025 2,600   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 26
- Date
- 26 mars 2026
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0326DEC002042225
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral