FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34384/21
Szandra HARASZTIA and Others
against Hungary
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 June 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Raffaele Sabato,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2021,
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 J. Cseszlai, 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 amount 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).
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 21 July 2022.
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.
Date of introduction
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]
34384/21
25/06/2021
(24 applicants)
Szandra HARASZTIA
1992
Larisza HARASZTIA
1954
László HARASZTIA
1956
Dávid HARASZTIA
1992
Péter HAJDÚ
1974
Gergely HAJDÚ
2008
Veronika HAJDÚ
2005
Zsófia HAJDÚNÉ BENCZÉDY
1976
Beáta KOLLÁR
1979
Szaffi Zoé PUSKÁS
2006
Artúr PUSKÁS
1976
Kadosa Kán PUSKÁS
2008
Artúr Bendegúz PUSKÁS
2004
Emese MIHÁLYI
1978
Zoltán FARKAS
1964
Bálint FARKAS
2010
Zoltán Gábor BAGYINSZKI
1972
Nándor BAGYINSZKI
2005
Dalma BAGYINSZKI
2008
Nóra BAGYINSZKI
2011
Annamária BAGYINSZKI-DOBOS
1976
Bence BALABÁS
2006
Andrea DARÓCZI
1966
Béla BALABÁS
1965
Cseszlai János
Budapest
19/04/2022
04/05/2022
2,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.