CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mai 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 } .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 } .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 } .s15CA1276 { width:11.92%; 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 } .sF49148C4 { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s808D5FFF { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCDE7AC7F { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEB3D0AA9 { width:26.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 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 } .s1C7D3929 { width:11.92%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAA013165 { width:21.76%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCB057B0A { width:13.04%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s33A12BF { width:14.14%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7E96D400 { width:26.1%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .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 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 9588/25 Gyula BÉRES and Others against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7   May 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 6   March 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 Ms R. Kovács N, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 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 amount 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 28 May 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 / Date of registration 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] 9588/25 06/03/2025 (91 applicants) Gyula BÉRES 1954 ADING-H KFT 2002 BAMTAN KFT 2008 Attila BÁNHEGYI 1963 Jenő BANKÓ 1956 Miklós BÁRDOSI 1960 Ferenc BAZSÓ 1972 Cecília Ibolya BENE 1974 Ágota BÍRÓ 1977 Ferenc József BŐDI 1958 BODROGOLASZI RUGÓGYÁRTÓ KFT 1997 Sándor BORS 1955 József BUDAI 1964 CHEMETALL KFT 1991 CIKS KFT. 2005 Zoltán CSIDEI 1966 László CSILLAG 1963 DÓZSA-GÁZ KFT 1991 László ENZSÖL 1956 Olivér FEHÉR 1958 FLEX-FÉNY KFT 2009 Sándor GAÁL 1955 GEMICOM KFT 1996 László HEGEDÜS 1961 Béla HORVÁTH 1953 György HORVÁTH 1960 László Tamás HORVÁTH 1948 Zsuzsanna HORVÁTH 1970 INFORG KFT 1990 Sándor Istvánné ISZAK 1972   Péter JUHÁSZ 1953 JÜLLICH GLAS HOLDING ZRT 1998 István KAJDI 1957 Györgyi KÁLMÁN 1971 KÁRÁSZY KFT 1996 Marianna KELEMENNÉ NEUBAUER 1966 András KISS 1962 László KŐHALMI 1970 László KOLOZÁR 1956 KOLTAY AUTÓS KFT 1990 Miklós KOMÁROMI 1955 József KOPCSÁNDI 1956 Dezső KOVÁCS 1954 Ferenc KOVÁCS 1962 Zsolt KOVÁCS 1965 KOZMA KFT 1997 Tibor Miklós KRIZMANITS 1957 KVAZÁR KFT 1993 Imre LAKATOS 1958 LOMBIK KFT 1997 LUBRICANT SERVICE KFT 2011 MAGYAR-LAKK KFT 1994 László MÁNDLI 1966 MARKETOOL KFT 2005 Tamás MENCZINGER 1964 Judit MESTERHÁZINÉ SOMOGYI 1968 MOLPLAST KFT 1997 József MÜHL 1960 Ferencné NAGY 1960 István NÉMETH 1956 József NÉMETH 1959 Tibor NÉMETH 1970 Zoltán NÉMETH 1956 Brigitta Mária ÓRA 1962   Tibor János ORBÁN 1955 PANNONLIFE KFT 2007 Antal PATHY 1963 Csongor Szabolcs PATYI 1969 Árpád PAYRITS 1954 Zoltán PETŐVÁRI 1963 István POÓR 1953 PRIMER-KEMI KFT 1996 Tibor PRUKNER 1956 SALDO ZRT 1993 SCHÖN-VILL KFT 1995 István SÜLE 1958 János SZABÓ 1954 Gyula SZAKÁCS 1955 Zoltán SZAKONYI 1953 Ottó SZANDI 1955 János SZEKERES 1964   SZOVA NONPROFIT ZRT 2007 TEMESI KFT 2005 Sándor TÓBI 1953 TRIOL-WEST KFT 2010 Antal VÁGVÖLGYI 1954 Zsolt Ákos VÁNDORI 1968 Miklós VARGA 1962 Zoltán VÁRTOK 1956 József László VÖLGYI 1960 István VÖRÖS 1958   Kovács N. Réka Budapest 05/02/2026 05/03/2026 200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.