Přehled
Rozhodnutí
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37413/22
Lajos KESZEI and Others
against Hungary
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 2 February 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 July 2022,
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 Mr I. Barbalics, 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”).
On 18 October 2022 the applicants’ representative informed the Court that Ms Antalné Golács withdrew her complaint.
THE LAW
The Court concludes that the applicant Ms Antalné Golács may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application in her regard.
Moreover, 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 the remaining applicants’ 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).
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,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in regard of Ms Antalné Golács;
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 remainder of 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 2 March 2023.
Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
Application no. | 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 (in euros)[1] |
25/07/2022 (89 applicants) | Lajos KESZEI 1939 Gabor VITÁRIS 1943 László KAMMEL 1944 István RAJCSÁNYI 1949 Imre ERDŐS 1946 Zoltán TUJNER 1948 József KOVÁCS 1958 Lajos KOVÁCS 1943 Amália NAGYNÉ BAKOS 1945 Antal BÁCSKAY 1933 Éva Emőke SZENTE 1981 Klára RÉVÉSZ 1945 János GAZDAG 1953 Gábor Ferenc SZALAI 1936 Tibor VARGA 1958 József HURIK 1965 Edina HOLLÓS 1968 József Árpád PIRI 1951 Attila Lászlóné BÁN 1940 Attila LIPNICZKY 1969 Andor PARÁDI 1927 János Csaba PÁLFI 1967 Tiborné MOLNÁR 1945 Ferenc MÁRKUS 1936 József HORVÁTH 1945 Attiláné PÉK 1944 Zita CSERMÁKNÉ JESZENSZKY 1940 János István BÓTH 1949 Tibor László KEPPEL 1942 Józsefné KÖHLER 1957 Ottó HÉRA 1939 Mónika KESZLER 1974 Barnabás BALOGH 1944 Károly HAJDU 1942 Ildikó KOVÁCSNÉ SZABÓ 1983 László Tibor SAMU 1963 Attila MOLNÁR 1942 Lajosné VIDOSICS 1940 Noémi Mária KOCZKA 1971 Gyula Álmosné OROSZ 1943 Edit MOLNÁRNÉ OROSZ 1975 József PETES 1946 Ottóné MILEDER 1932 András Kálmánné NÉMETH 1951 Imre TAKÁCS 1944 Lajosné BARTI 1953 Györgyné BLASKOVICS 1940 Istvánné ZIMONYI 1948 Sándor Ferencné CSIZMADIA 1942 Józsefné KELEMEN 1937 Ferenc MOHÁCSI 1943 Viktória Mária EGRI-MOHÁCSY 1972 Jenőné MOHÁCSY 1942 Ildikó BERCSÉNYINÉ EITL 1974 Tamás Attila MOHÁCSI 1975 Lászlóné NÉMETH 1943 József HABENICHT 1946 Judit GRESZLERNÉ FÜLE 1979 Judit Gizella VÁMOSI 1951 László SZENTÁGOTAI 1937 Gábor BALOGH 1960 József SZABÓ 1956 István Pál DEMETER 1948 Lajos VIDOSICS 1938 Ilona NEDLER 1945 Erika ORSÓ-KAJOS 1979 Gyula Kálmánné KAJOS 1944 Árpád Ferenc TUBOLY 1961 Miklós Pál OLÁH 1944 János KISS 1966 Jánosné GONDOS 1943 Ferencné DÉTÁRI 1938 Tamás KELEMEN 1979 György BRULICH 1947 Ernő TAKÁCS 1944 Mónika Judit NYULNÉ MÁTYÁS 1973 János MISZTI 1949 Alfrédné VINCZE 1939 Lionel MATYI 1974 Jánosné CZUDOR 1945 Gyöngyi GAVALLÉR 1973 Tiborné FEJÉR 1930 Beáta VANDRUSNÉ REINPRECHT 1950 Andrásné CSORDÁS 1936 Elemér MAGYAR 1956 Károly BALÁZS 1937 György BLASKOVICS 1938 Sándor Ferenc CSIZMADIA 1936 László IRSÁN 1964 | Barbalics István Budapest | 12/12/2022 | 09/01/2023 | 2,000 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.