Paur and Others v. Hungary

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 52606/22 Anna PAUR and Others

against Hungary

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 May 2023 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President , Gilberto Felici, Raffaele Sabato , judges ,

and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2022,

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 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

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 amounts 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 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 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 25 May 2023.

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]

52606/22

24/10/2022

(36 applicants)

Anna PAUR

1954

Sándorné NAGY

1935

Tibor Zoltán MOLNÁR

1946

Tamás József NÁNSZKI

1971

Antal ENYEDI

1940

József VÖRÖS

1952

Béláné PASZMÁR

1945

József Mihály STÖRK

1944

Terézia HEINER

1941

Olga BERTAI

1942

Attila Ferenc CSETERKI

1970

Gyuláné PRUKNER

1944

Imréné GÉMES

1936

Edit KISS

1954

Edit Ilona CSEKŐ

1957

Ildikó CSEKŐ

1972

Csaba SÁNDOR

1982

József Ágoston KÖRMENDY

1927

Károly KIRÁLY

1974

Gyula János KIRÁLY

1944

Julianna PEFFER

1937

Ágnes CSOHÁNY

1979

Andrásné PALKOVICS

1943

Mária SZABÓ

1960

Imréné BARACSI

1933

Gyuláné LOVAS

1938

Jánosné DECHANT

1937

Mátyásné KENDERESI

1936

Lászlóné NÁTHER

1939

Tiborné MARKÓ

1959

Csaba László SZLOSZJAR

1980

Dóra ÁROK-HAVAI

1978

György FÜR

1944

János Tibor HANGAY

1950

Ernőné GOSCHLER

1938

Györgyi TURZÓ

1946

Barbalics István

Budapest

20/02/2023

12/03/2023

2,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant