FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25717/21
István ZSIFKOVICS and Others against Hungary
and 2 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 May 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 applications lodged 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 PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr I. Barbalics, 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
Having 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. 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).
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 9 June 2022.
Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
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
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/household
(in euros)[1]
25717/21
07/05/2021
(29 applicants)
István ZSIFKOVICS
1953
Mariann ANTOSNÉ SZÍVA
1956
Szilveszter Tibor BALOG
1954
József BECZŐK
1942
Zoltánné BEDŐK
1940
Miklós BERTALAN
1950
Lajos Károlyné BÖDÖCS
1958
Imre CSENGERI
1955
Lászlóné CSIZMAZIA
1950
Lajosné GROÁK
1941
Csabáné KALUCZA
1946
Zoltán KERTÉSZ
1948
Veronika KRAUZIERITZNÉ LADOS
1961
Lászlóné NÉMETH
1937
Szilárd Gergely OROVICA
1977
Károlyné ÓVÁRI
1946
Ferencné PAPP
1942
László SOLYMOS
1947
Gézáné SZABÓ
1941
Károly SZABÓ
1952
Tamás Gyula SZARVAS
1946
Vendelné SZŰCS
1947
Mihályné UHRIN
1969
Csaba Lajos VÖLGYI
1955
József ZSIDEI
1958
Ferencné ZSIGOVICS
1969
Zoltán ZSOLDOS
1977
Household
Gergely NAGY
1957
István NAGY
1954
Barbalics István
Budapest
12/04/2022
23/04/2022
9,100
35928/21
30/06/2021
(14 applicants)
Zsuzsanna Zsófia VISONTAI
1971
Miklós SZIVA
1954
József MAY
1970
István FÖLDI
1930
József SZEMETI
1952
Ferencné SZEPESI
1946
György SZABÓ
1953
Józsefné ALMÁSI
1938
Tibor NAGY
1960
Katalin VÁRADI
1967
Miklós Ferencné BŐLE
1959
Ernő BÍRÓ
1951
László ÓDOR
1951
László PORDÁNY
1951
Barbalics István
Budapest
13/04/2022
23/04/2022
9,100
46670/21
08/09/2021
(21 applicants)
Géza VADÁSZ
1943
Kálmán BENDE
1937
Lajos GULYÁS
1953
Lászlóné ERDŐS
1965
Zoltán ZÁDORI
1954
Ferencné IHÁSZ
1954
Lajosné EGYED
1939
László BOROS
1947
Attila FERENC
1950
Kálmán KASZÁS
1961
András ERDŐHÁTI
1961
István József BEZZEG
1934
Lívia Mária STOMPNÉ KOLLÁR
1957
István TÓTH
1959
József BÖRZSEI
1959
János TAKÁCS
1943
Mátyás STIPKOVITS
1951
Tibor PINTYE
1958
Ferenc István KOVÁCS
1952
Márta SZELÉNÉ VARGA
1964
Tibor GÖMÖRI
1961
Barbalics István
Budapest
14/04/2022
23/04/2022
9,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.