Béres and Others v. Hungary

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 9588/25 Gyula BÉRES and Others against Hungary

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 May 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 6 March 2025,

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:

The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.

The applicants were represented by Ms R. Kovács N, 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”).

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 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 and Csatári and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 18514/24, 20 May 2025).

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 28 May 2026.

Attila Teplán Stéphane Pisani 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 /

Date of registration

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]

9588/25

06/03/2025

(91 applicants)

Gyula BÉRES

1954

ADING-H KFT

2002

BAMTAN KFT

2008

Attila BÁNHEGYI

1963

Jenő BANKÓ

1956

Miklós BÁRDOSI

1960

Ferenc BAZSÓ

1972

Cecília Ibolya BENE

1974

Ágota BÍRÓ

1977

Ferenc József BŐDI

1958

BODROGOLASZI RUGÓGYÁRTÓ KFT

1997

Sándor BORS

1955

József BUDAI

1964

CHEMETALL KFT

1991

CIKS KFT.

2005

Zoltán CSIDEI

1966

László CSILLAG

1963

DÓZSA-GÁZ KFT

1991

László ENZSÖL

1956

Olivér FEHÉR

1958

FLEX-FÉNY KFT

2009

Sándor GAÁL

1955

GEMICOM KFT

1996

László HEGEDÜS

1961

Béla HORVÁTH

1953

György HORVÁTH

1960

László Tamás HORVÁTH

1948

Zsuzsanna HORVÁTH

1970

INFORG KFT

1990

Sándor Istvánné ISZAK

1972

Péter JUHÁSZ

1953

JÜLLICH GLAS HOLDING ZRT

1998

István KAJDI

1957

Györgyi KÁLMÁN

1971

KÁRÁSZY KFT

1996

Marianna KELEMENNÉ NEUBAUER

1966

András KISS

1962

László KŐHALMI

1970

László KOLOZÁR

1956

KOLTAY AUTÓS KFT

1990

Miklós KOMÁROMI

1955

József KOPCSÁNDI

1956

Dezső KOVÁCS

1954

Ferenc KOVÁCS

1962

Zsolt KOVÁCS

1965

KOZMA KFT

1997

Tibor Miklós KRIZMANITS

1957

KVAZÁR KFT

1993

Imre LAKATOS

1958

LOMBIK KFT

1997

LUBRICANT SERVICE KFT

2011

MAGYAR-LAKK KFT

1994

László MÁNDLI

1966

MARKETOOL KFT

2005

Tamás MENCZINGER

1964

Judit MESTERHÁZINÉ SOMOGYI

1968

MOLPLAST KFT

1997

József MÜHL

1960

Ferencné NAGY

1960

István NÉMETH

1956

József NÉMETH

1959

Tibor NÉMETH

1970

Zoltán NÉMETH

1956

Brigitta Mária ÓRA

1962

Tibor János ORBÁN

1955

PANNONLIFE KFT

2007

Antal PATHY

1963

Csongor Szabolcs PATYI

1969

Árpád PAYRITS

1954

Zoltán PETŐVÁRI

1963

István POÓR

1953

PRIMER-KEMI KFT

1996

Tibor PRUKNER

1956

SALDO ZRT

1993

SCHÖN-VILL KFT

1995

István SÜLE

1958

János SZABÓ

1954

Gyula SZAKÁCS

1955

Zoltán SZAKONYI

1953

Ottó SZANDI

1955

János SZEKERES

1964

SZOVA NONPROFIT ZRT

2007

TEMESI KFT

2005

Sándor TÓBI

1953

TRIOL-WEST KFT

2010

Antal VÁGVÖLGYI

1954

Zsolt Ákos VÁNDORI

1968

Miklós VARGA

1962

Zoltán VÁRTOK

1956

József László VÖLGYI

1960

István VÖRÖS

1958

Kovács N. Réka

Budapest

05/02/2026

05/03/2026

200

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