SECOND SECTION

CASE OF CSATÁRI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 18514/24)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 June 2025

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Csatári and Others v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

 Stéphane Pisani, President,
 Péter Paczolay,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,

and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 18514/24) 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 June 2024 by ten Hungarian nationals, relevant details are listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Ms F. Pintér, a lawyer practising in Győr;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 20 May 2025,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns the protractedness of liquidation proceedings in which the applicants are creditors (see for details the Appendix below).

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

2.  The applicants complained that the length of these proceedings, civil in nature, was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

3.  The Court notes that the proceedings in question pertain to a liquidation that has lasted over 24 years so far. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is applicable under its civil limb to such a procedure (see Oliveira Modesto and Others v. Portugal, no. 34422/97, §§ 29-30, 8 June 2000; Bíró v. Hungary, no. 15652/04, §§ 17 et seq., 18 July 2006; Cipolletta v. Italy, no. 38259/09, §§ 22-37, 11 January 2018; see also Kulcsár v. Hungary [Committee], no. 22434/08, 25 March 2014).

4.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

5.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

6.  In the leading case of Gazsó v. Hungary (no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

7.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

8.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

9.  In respect of pecuniary damage, the applicants claimed various amounts ranging from 706 Hungarian forints (HUF; approximately 1.75 euros (EUR)) to HUF 547,293 (EUR 1,350), the sums indicated apparently corresponding to the debts unenforced as yet. Furthermore, they each claimed EUR 4,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

10.  The Government found these claims excessive.

11.  The Court notes the large number of complaints against Hungary concerning the protractedness of liquidation proceedings. The dangers, in terms of clogging up the list of cases with repetitive applications against Hungary, that such a situation entails for the effectiveness of the mechanism established by the Convention are obvious (see, mutatis mutandis, Gaglione and Others v. Italy, nos. 45867/07 and 69 others, § 66, 21 December 2010).

12.  The Court reiterates that it is an international court whose principal task is to ensure respect for human rights as guaranteed in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, rather than to compensate minutely and completely the applicants for the damage they have suffered. Unlike national courts, the Court’s privileged role is to adopt public judgments establishing human rights standards applicable throughout Europe (see, mutatis mutandis, Goncharova and other “Privileged Pensioners” cases v. Russia, nos. 23113/08 and 68 others, § 22, 15 October 2009).

13.  For these reasons, in cases involving numerous victims in a similar situation, a uniform approach is required (see Gaglione and Others, cited above, § 68).

14.  The Court observes that in the present case, irrespective of the specific situation of each applicant, they are all victims in the same way of the Hungarian authorities’ inability to bring to an end the liquidation proceedings in which they are creditors within a time-limit compatible with the obligations arising from the respondent State’s accession to the Convention (compare ibid., § 69).

15.  In the light of the foregoing and ruling on an equitable basis, the Court considers it appropriate to award a lump sum of EUR 200 to each applicant, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage (compare also ibid., § 70). It does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects those claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay each of the applicants, within three months, EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 June 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Dorothee von Arnim Stéphane Pisani
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

(excessive length of civil proceedings)

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