SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KASZA AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 23095/24)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
28 August 2025
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kasza and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Gediminas Sagatys, President,
Stéphane Pisani,
Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 July 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
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 5 August 2024.
2. The applicants were represented by Ms F. Pintér, 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 (liquidation) proceedings.
THE LAW
6. The applicants complained that the length of the liquidation 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 ...”
7. 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).
8. 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 violations in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
11. 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.”
12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Csatári and Others, cited above, §§ 9 to 15), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
(a) 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;
(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.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 28 August 2025, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Gediminas Sagatys
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of civil proceedings)
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] |
23095/24 05/08/2024 (36 applicants) | József KASZA 1949 Boldizsár BÖDŐ 1967 Lászlóné BREUER 1953 Péter FARKAS 1964 László HALÁSZ 1974 József HONTI 1961 Ella JANCSÓ 1952 Lászlóné KÉKESI 1954 Illés KOVÁCS 1954 Lajos KOZÁK 1958 Mihály MANYKÓ 1956 Béláné MIKÓ 1949 Mihály MLADONYECZKI 1963 Ferenc Józsefné MÓRA 1947 Ferenc MÓRÉ 1964 János MUCSI 1972 Istvánné NAGY 1954 Istvánné NAGY 1957 György PAPP 1953 Ignác PERGE 1965 Margit PETRÓ 1959 János PRECZEKJÁN 1944 János RATKAI 1952 Anna RÓZSA 1968 Margit S. PAPP 1947 Istvánné SOMODI 1953 István Miklós SZABÓ 1957 László SZABÓ 1966 László SZABÓ 1977 József TÖRÖK 1950 György VACHAL 1954 Józsefné VÁGÁNY 1947 Ferenc VARGA 1959 Józsefné VARGA 1964 Károly VARGA 1960 József VÁRSZEGI 1955
| Pintér Fruzsina Győr | 13/07/2000
| pending
| More than 24 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 9 day(s) 1 level(s) of jurisdiction
| 200 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.