Published on 4 May 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 4798/24
Éva BATKE
against Hungary
lodged on 5 February 2024
communicated on 16 April 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the seizure of the applicant’s property in criminal, and subsequently civil, proceedings.
On 30 June 2010 the applicant was questioned by the Tax Authority on charges of bankruptcy fraud in connection to the insolvency of a company where she had been the executive director. On 10 December 2010 the Budapest High Court seized the applicant’s immovable and movable property in the amount of 41,065,600 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 105,000 euros (EUR)). The criminal proceedings were discontinued on 5 March 2012, and the Budapest IX District Prosecutor’s Office released the applicant’s property.
In the meantime, a creditor of the company initiated civil proceedings with the view to establishing the applicant’s liability for the company’s insolvency. Following a complaint of the creditor, on 13 July 2012 the Budapest IX District Prosecutor’s Office set aside its previous decision and the applicant’s property remained under seizure. Eventually, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the release of the applicant’s property on 8 December 2023.
The applicant sought compensation for the protraction of the civil proceedings under Act no. XCIV of 2021. By a decision of 13 May 2024, the Debrecen Court of Appeal awarded her HUF 1,835,000 (approximately EUR 4,700) in damages.
The applicant complains that due to the protraction of the civil proceedings her property was, for about thirteen years, under unjustified seizure for which she had no effective remedy. She relies on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Hábenczius v. Hungary, no. 44473/06, 21 October 2014, and JGK Statyba Ltd and Guselnikovas v. Lithuania, no. 3330/12, 5 November 2013)?