SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5286/25
Éva VINCZE
against Hungary
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 26 March 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 application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 13 February 2025,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDUREThe applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr D. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)Having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the protractedness of the prosecution.
In particular, the Court notes that the proceedings lasted less than five and a half years for two levels of jurisdiction which cannot be considered excessive in the particular circumstances of the case.
The Court therefore finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
Remaining complaintsThe applicant also raised other complaints under various articles of the Convention.
The Court has examined the application and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 16 April 2026.
Attila Teplán Stéphane Pisani
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal 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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
5286/25
13/02/2025
Éva VINCZE
1968
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
19/11/2019
14/05/2025
5 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 26 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings