SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37500/24
Tiborné GAZSOVICS and Others against Hungary
and 5 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 April 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 declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDUREThe 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 civil 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 LAWHaving regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged the excessive length of civil proceedings. In some of the applications, they further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications 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 these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook 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 applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. The Court has not received a response from the applicants accepting the terms of the declarations.
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 cases 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 declarations 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 applications (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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications 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 cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 13 May 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 civil proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth/Date of registration
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 comments, if any
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
37500/24
03/12/2024
(8 applicants)
Tiborné GAZSOVICS
1936
István KUN
1958
Erzsébet LUKÁCSNÉ BARTUCZ
1963
Tibor MERÉNYI
1962
László Csabáné NYITRAI
1948
Tiborné SZIJÁRTÓ
1941
Tiborné SZŐKE
1966
Eszter Alexandra TIBORCZNÉ TÓTH
1975
Kodela Viktor
Budapest
22/01/2026
25/02/2026
200
4427/25
05/02/2025
Tibor JÓNÁS
1955
Frank Evelyn
Budapest
26/01/2026
26/02/2026
200
8046/25
07/03/2025
(18 applicants)
Ciprián Imre PÉK
1953
BOSCH REXROTH KFT.
1990
József BURKON
1970
EDKOPRESS KFT.
1997
Ferenc FARKAS
1966
FEMAT-‑UNGÁRIA KFT.
1995
HB MÉRNÖKI IRODA KFT.
1997
János György KISS
1957
Zoltán KULCSÁR
1965
Ferenc NAGY
1959
László NÉMETH
1964
Miklós NÉMETH
1965
Csaba PATHY
1961
István STÁNITZ
1953
Péter Miklós SZIJ
1963
Krisztián László TÖRÖK
1973
Zsolt VARGYAI
1968
Ernő ZSOLNAI
1953
Kovács N. Réka
Budapest
05/02/2026
05/03/2026
200
13551/25
24/04/2025
Zsolt István HOLLÓSY
1970
Frank Evelyn
Budapest
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings -
23/01/2026
26/02/2026
200
19239/25
13/06/2025
Szeula MINE
1951
Judit JUHÁSZ
1967
Kodela Viktor
Budapest
05/02/2026
06/03/2026
200
22257/25
16/07/2025
Csaba Sándor VÉGH
1950
Kovács N. Réka
Budapest
26/02/2026
05/03/2026
200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.