FIRST SECTION
CASE OF BOTYANSZKÁ AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA
(Application no. 56444/22)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
25 June 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Botyanszká and Others v. Slovakia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Raffaele Sabato, President,
Artūrs Kučs,
Anna Adamska-Gallant, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 4 June 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE1. The case originated in an application against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 16 November 2022.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms O. Szabó, a lawyer practising in Patince.
3. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The present applications concern the same administrative proceedings already examined in Balogh and Others v. Slovakia (no. 35142/15, 31 August 2018) and Balogh and Others v. Slovakia [Committee] (nos. 7918/19 and 43062/20, 16 December 2021).
6. As regards their evolution following the Nitra Regional Court’s decision of 9 December 2019 to quash the decision of the Komárno Land Office of 27 May 2010, it appears that while the proceedings on the merits were pending before the Komárno Land Office, the Nitra Regional Court was deciding on the costs incurred by the applicants. The latter proceedings ended on 5 March 2020, when the decision became final.
7. On 1 March 2021 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint in respect of, inter alia, excessive length of the proceedings before the Komárno Land Office and the Nitra Regional Court. On 30 June 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected the complaint, noting that the proceedings before the Nitra Regional Court had already ended and, therefore, the complaint was belated. Regarding the length of the proceedings before the Komárno Land Office, the Constitutional Court rejected their complaint for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the applicants should have brought an administrative action for acceleration of the administrative proceedings (III. ÚS 390/2022).
8. According to the information in the case file, it appears that the proceedings are still pending before the Komárno Land Office.
THE LAWALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION9. The applicants complained, principally, that the length of the administrative proceedings in question was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
10. The Court rejects the Government’s objection that the periods from 9 February 2012 until 11 February 2014 and from 2 March 2015 until 10 June 2016, when the case was pending before the Supreme Court, should be excluded from the period under assessment, as the applicants had not directed the summary of their constitutional complaint also against the latter court. The rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies needs to be applied with some degree of flexibility, without excessive formalism and with regard to the particular circumstances of each individual case (see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, § 140, 27 November 2023).
11. The proceedings in question before the Supreme Court were part of the first round of the administrative proceedings and had ended long before the applicants lodged their constitutional complaint. According to the Constitutional Court’s practice, applicants can complain of excessive length of proceedings only when the proceedings are pending before the authority liable for the alleged violation at the time when the complaint is lodged (see Obluk v. Slovakia, no. 69484/01, § 61, 20 June 2006). In accordance with this practice, any complaint directed against the Supreme Court would, in any event, be rejected as being submitted too late, just as the Constitutional Court did in the applicants’ case with the part directed against the Regional Court (see paragraph 7 above). In this context, the Court notes that the applicants duly lodged their constitutional complaint while the proceedings were still pending before the Komárno Land Office and that a length-of-proceedings complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution can only be considered “effective” for Convention purposes if it is capable of leading in each individual case to an examination of the overall length of the proceedings (see Obluk, cited above, § 60).
12. The Government have acknowledged that the duration of the proceedings in issue was excessive. They, however, pointed out that the case had been procedurally very complex (the restitution claim had been lodged by 174 plaintiffs, whose number had increased to 345 in the course of the proceedings) and five hearings had had to be adjourned on account of the plaintiffs’ representatives’ absences or requests. Moreover, the dispute had had little significance for the applicants, since they had been asserting a claim to which they had not been entitled.
13. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).
14. In the leading case of Balogh and Others (cited above), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
15. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument (including those related to the complexity of the case, the alleged contribution of the applicants’ representatives or the allegedly minor importance of the dispute) capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case, the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
16. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW17. The applicants complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they had not had an effective remedy at their disposal in respect of the excessive length of the administrative proceedings.
18. This complaint is admissible and constitutes a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, having regard to the Court’s findings in the leading case of Balogh and Others (cited above, §§ 48-67).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION19. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Balogh and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the application admissible; Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of administrative proceedings; Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention on account of the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint of the excessive length of the restitution proceedings; Holds that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on those amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Raffaele Sabato
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of administrative 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
Domestic court
File number
Domestic award
(in euros)
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant /household
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
56444/22
16/11/2022
(19 applicants)
Eva BOTYANSZKÁ
1957
Ferdinand GŐGH
1958
Zoltán FEKETE
1966
Judita KUCSEROVÁ
1955
Marta MIKOVIČOVÁ
1957
Magdaléna PETHESOVÁ
1956
Ladislav SZÉPE
1958
Marta MAJOROVÁ
1958
Jozef KÜRTI
1966
Regina KUCSEROVÁ
1945
Irena GACSALOVÁ
1953
Arpád CSONTOS
1956
Prisca VIZIOVÁ
1954
Zoltán PÁLOVICS
1954
Zuzana CZIGLEOVÁ
1973
Household
Anna GŐGHOVÁ
1966
Zoltán GŐGH
1969
Household
Jozef LECZKÉSI
1955
Marta LECZKESIOVÁ
1961
Szabó Olga
Patince
23/12/2004
pending
More than 21 years
at 2 levels of jurisdiction
Constitutional Court:
III. US 390/2022
0
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - The Constitutional Court segmented the proceedings and declined jurisdiction to examine the length of the proceedings before the admin. organ, directing the applicants to bring an action for inactivity of the admin. organ before the admin. court. Such practice was found at odds with the Court’s approach to examining the overall length of the proceedings, reiterated in two judgments concerning the same domestic proceedings but different applicants (see Balogh and Others v. Slovakia, no. 35142/15, §§ 54-58, 31 August 2018, and Balogh and Others v. Slovakia [Committee], nos. 7918/19 and 43062/20, 16 December 2021)
8,500
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.