CASE OF VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

    SECOND SECTION CASE OF VARGA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Application no. 7641/25)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 11 June 2026     This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Varga and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Stéphane Pisani, President,  Juha Lavapuro,  Hugh Mercer, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 May 2026, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.  The case originated in an 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. 2.  The applicants were represented by Mr B. Háromszéki, a lawyer practising in Győr. 3.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicants complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION6.  The Court finds at the outset that the applicant Ms Imréné Révész was initially listed as an applicant because of an administrative error. It is therefore no longer justified to continue the examination of the application in that respect (Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application in her regard. 7.  The remaining applicants complained that the length of the civil proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...” 8.  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). 9.  In the leading cases of Gazsó v. Hungary, no. 48322/12, 16 July 2015 and Csatári and Others v. Hungary [Committee], no. 18514/24, 20 May 2025, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 10.  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. 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION12.  Article 41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 13.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Csatári and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,      Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention in regard to Ms Imréné Révész;     Declares the remaining applicants’ complaints admissible;     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;     Holds  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;  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.Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 June 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.    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   Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] 7641/25 06/03/2025 (24 applicants) Bálint Lajos VARGA 1943 Sándor ÁDÁM 1955 János FARAGÓ 1937 Ferencné GÖŐZ 1953 Gábor HÉJA 1935 Györgyné HÉJA 1946 Sándor HERCZEG 1961 Sándor KÁSA 1939 Ibolya KISSNÉ RÉVÉSZ 1962 Gabriella Ágnes KOVÁCS 1994 Ilona KOVÁCSNÉ WANDRUS 1962   István MULIK 1954 István NAGY 1938 Zsuzsanna Ilona PAPPNÉ KOVÁCS 1984 Gyula RAGÓ 1944 Attila RÉVÉSZ 1976 Éva RÉVÉSZ 1983 József RÉVÉSZ 1966 Imre SÁNTA 1962 Mária Ilona SZALONTAI 1956 Józsefné SZŰCS 1952 Zoltán TÁMBA 1976 Gyula TÓTH 1958 László TÓTH 1955   Háromszéki Bence Győr 13/07/2000   pending   More than 24 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 2 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction   200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.