MONOKI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

  SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 31275/24 Károly MONOKI and Others against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 February 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 21 October 2024, 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”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. 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 further acknowledged that the domestic authorities had violated the applicants’ rights guaranteed by other provisions of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicants the amount 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 26 February 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 Other complaints under well-established case-law   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] 31275/24 21/10/2024 (134 applicants) Károly MONOKI 1956 Lajos Károlyné ÁBRI 1958 Balázsné ÁCS 1965 Tamás Györgyné ANDREKOVICS 1950 Erzsébet BAKONYINÉ LÉKÓ 1960 Istvánné BÁLINT 1941 Jánosné BALOG 1945 Lukácsné BARABÁS 1943 József BÁRÁNDI 1955 Bálnt BARANYA 1966 Sándorné BARÁT 1936 István BÁRDI 1949 Zoltán Józsefné BERTALAN 1956 László BÍRÓ 1961 Istvánné BOLGOVICS 1946 Sándor István BORÓK 1967 Lukács BOTOS 1946 Sándor BOZÓ 1955 Lajos CSÍKI 1958 Ernő CZAKÓ 1942 Mihályné DANYI 1956 Istvánné DEÁK 1956 Lajos DEMETER 1949 István DOMÁNY 1958 Julianna ECSEKINÉ MOLDVAI 1958 Lajosné ÉRI 1938 Attila Péter ERNESZT 1978 Balázs Árpád ERNESZT 1989 Csaba ERNESZT 1980 Lajos ERNESZT 1978 Sándor FÁBIÁN 1963 Imre FARKAS 1935 Ferencné FAZEKAS 1941 Lajos FEHÉR 1972 Pálné FEHÉR 1935 Zoltánné FEHÉR 1970 László FEJÉR 1957 Kálmán FODOR 1957 Józsefné GÁL 1932 Lajosné GÁL 1962 Gyula GÓDOR 1957 Ferenc Gáborné GOLYÁN 1957 Ferencné GULYÁS 1942 Valéria GYETVAI 1965 Aranka HANGAYNÉ FARAGÓ 1962 Judit HEGYMEGINÉ FEHÉR 1974 Miklósné HÉJA 1945 Tünde HÉJA 1972 Ágnes HŐGYE 1973 Piroska HŐGYE 1962 István Csaba JAKAB 1960 Istvánné JAKAB 1968 József JAKAB 1952 Miklósné JÁMBOR 1960 Endre Lajos JÓZSA 1974 Péter JÓZSA 1984 István Péter KALMÁR 1954 Dezső KATONA 1949 József KATONA 1944 Sándor KATONA 1962 Józef Imréné KEŐ 1948 József KEŐ 1975 Endre KIS 1955 Ferenc KIS 1948 Endréné KISS 1953 Gáborné KISS 1966 István KISS 1959 Kálmánné KISS 1945 Zoltán KISS 1974 Istvánné KISZELY 1947 János Géza KLUJBER 1968 Ferenc KÓCZIÁN 1969 Zoltán KÓCZIÁN 1971 György KOCZKA 1973 Dóra KOVÁCS 1981 Józsefné KOVÁCS 1953 Lajos KOVÁCS 1956 Pál KOVÁCS 1951 Sándor KOVÁCS 1964 Judit KOVÁCSNÉ OSZLÁNCZKI 1973 Béla KUN 1950 Sándorné LACZKA 1951 Istvánné LÁNYI 1954 Imre LENGE 1945 Margit LENGÉNÉ TATÁR 1973 János LIMBÓCZKI 1962 János LOVAS 1939 Katalin LOVAS 1954 Sándor LOVAS 1957 Béláné LUKÁCS 1951 Jánosné MAKAI 1946 Ferenc MÁRKI 1958 Zoltán MARSI 1975 János Istvánné MESTER 1951 Béláné MÉSZÁROS 1951 Lászlóné MICSINAI 1945 András MOLNÁR 1953 Benedek Attila MOLNÁR 1953 Sándor MOLNÁR 1958 Kálmán MONOKI 1956 Kálmán NAGY 1944 László NAGY 1946 Attila NYESŐ 1963 Jánosné NYESŐ 1960 Mihály János NYESŐ 1955 Mihályné NYESŐ 1934 Attila OROS 1975 Józsefné OROS 1951 Tiborné PAJTI 1976 Sándorné PÁNTI 1971 Áron László POCSAI 1943 Jánosné POSTÁS 1939 Sándorné PUSKÁS 1952 Attiláné RIMÓCZI 1957 László RIMÓCZI 1953 Imre SÁFÁR 1963 Gábor SÁRKÁNY 1990 Imre SÁRKÁNY 1974 Sándor Endre SÁRKÁNY 1976 Katalin SÁRKÁNYNÉ SZABÓ 1974 Györgyné SERES 1958 Jánosné SZABÓ 1945 Kálmán SZABÓ 1949 László SZABÓ 1958 Lászlóné SZABÓ 1948 Csaba SZOLLÁR 1965 Miklós SZOLLÁR 1958 Tünde SZOMBATINÉ MONOKI 1963 Pálné TÁNCZOS 1951 Kálmánné TÖRŐCSIK 1958 Imre TÓTH 1971 Mária Ildikó VÁRADINÉ ERNESZT 1982 Imréné VÉGH 1955 Zsolt Istvánné ZSOLDOS 1953   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of civil proceedings 06/11/2025 09/12/2025 200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.