{"id":17690,"date":"2021-12-16T12:32:26","date_gmt":"2021-12-16T12:32:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17690"},"modified":"2021-12-16T12:32:26","modified_gmt":"2021-12-16T12:32:26","slug":"case-of-balogh-and-others-v-slovakia-european-court-of-human-rights-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=17690","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (European Court of Human Rights)"},"content":{"rendered":"

FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA<\/strong>
\n(Applications nos. 7918\/19 and 43062\/20)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 December 2021<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Balogh and Others v. Slovakia,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a\u00a0Committee composed of:<\/p>\n

Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m, President,
\nLorraine Schembri Orland,
\nIoannis Ktistakis, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 25 November 2021,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in applications against Slovakia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

2. The applicants were represented by Ms O. Szab\u00f3, a lawyer practising in Patince.<\/p>\n

3. The Slovak Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the applications.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

5. The applicants initiated administrative proceedings on 23 December 2004 before the Kom\u00e1rno Land Office. On 27 May 2010 the Land Office dismissed the claim on the ground that the claimants lacked standing. The decision was upheld by the Nitra Regional Court on 21 November 2011.<\/p>\n

6. The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Regional Court on 29\u00a0January 2014 and remitted the case for re-examination since the lower court had failed to establish the representatives\u2019 authority to act on behalf of the claimants.<\/p>\n

7. The Regional Court rendered another judgment on 4 December 2014 covering several procedural issues without deciding on the merits of the case. On 25 May 2016 the Supreme Court upheld that judgment.<\/p>\n

8. On 21 June 2018 and 28 April 2020, the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants\u2019 right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded each of them 300 euros (EUR) in just satisfaction. Although the applicants had also complained of delays in the proceedings before the Land Office, the Constitutional Court only examined the length of the proceedings before the Regional Court (IV. US 248\/2018 and II. US 392\/2019).<\/p>\n

9. On 9 December 2019 the Regional Court quashed the decision of the Land Office of 27 May 2010 and remitted the case for new proceedings.<\/p>\n

10. According to the information available in the case file, the proceedings have since been pending before the Land Office.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n

11. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n

II. THE LOCUS STANDI OF the applicants\u2019 heirs<\/p>\n

12. As concerns the applicants marked by an asterisk (see appended table), the Court notes that they died on the dates indicated in the appended table while the present applications were pending before the Court. The applicants\u2019 heirs, whose details are set out in the appended table, have asked to pursue the applications on their relatives\u2019 behalf. As the requests are in line with its case-law, the Court sees no reason to refuse (see, among other authorities, Horv\u00e1thov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no.\u00a074456\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 25-27, 17\u00a0May 2005). However, reference will still be made to the original applicants throughout the present text.<\/p>\n

III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a06 \u00a7 1 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

13. The applicants complained that the length of the administrative proceedings in question had been incompatible with the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement. They relied on Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01<\/p>\n

\u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n

14. The Government submitted that the applicants had lost their victim status because of the acknowledgment of the violation by the Constitutional Court, the acceleratory effect of its judgments and the financial compensation awarded.<\/p>\n

15. They further submitted that the applicants had failed to exhaust all available remedies. The proceedings were again pending before the Land Office and therefore the applicants should have challenged their length by means of an administrative action for acceleration of the administrative proceedings provided for in Articles 242-251 of the new Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure, as also required by the established practice of the Constitutional Court. The Government stressed that the current legislation had strengthened the preventive character of that remedy in that, inter alia, it allowed the administrative court to fine repeatedly an administrative organ in case of inactivity. Coupled with subsequent civil action under the State Liability Act, these remedies would offer the applicants appropriate satisfaction (preventive and compensatory).<\/p>\n

16. Referring to the Court\u2019s judgment in Balogh and Others v. Slovakia (no. 35142\/15, 31 August 2018), the applicants asserted that the overall length of the proceedings was unjustifiable, particularly so that they had not contributed to the delays.<\/p>\n

17. As regards the applicants\u2019 victim status, the Court notes that the proceedings at hand have so far lasted for almost 17 years before the administrative authority and two levels of courts. According to the latest information available to the Court they have not yet ended, which necessarily puts in doubt the Government\u2019s argument about the acceleratory effect of the Constitutional Court\u2019s judgments. Moreover, the amount of EUR 300 which each of the applicants received at the domestic level cannot be considered sufficient in the light of the Court\u2019s case-law (see Scordino v.\u00a0Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813\/97, \u00a7\u00a7 205-06 and 214-15, ECHR 2006\u2011V). The applicants can accordingly still claim to be \u201cvictims\u201d of a breach of the \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n

18. As for the Government\u2019s plea of non-exhaustion, the Court observes that it has already found in Balogh and Others (cited above, \u00a7 57) that such a cumulation of remedies, which by extension leads to a multiplication of judicial proceedings, raises general doubts about its overall effectiveness. The Court is of the opinion that, despite certain legislative changes in respect of the administrative action for acceleration of the proceedings, the conclusions reached in Balogh and Others are still relevant in the present case for the following reasons.<\/p>\n

19. While taking note of the legislative changes, the Court observes that they only took effect on 1 July 2016, when the impugned proceedings had already been pending for almost 12 years. At that stage, a violation of the applicants\u2019 right to a hearing within a reasonable time had already occurred and a mere preventive remedy could not provide adequate satisfaction (see I\u0161tv\u00e1n and I\u0161tv\u00e1nov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no. 30189\/07, \u00a7 82, 12\u00a0June 2012). Yet, the administrative action for acceleration of the proceedings under the new Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure provides exclusively this type of satisfaction.<\/p>\n

20. Moreover, the action for acceleration of the proceedings together with the civil action under the State Liability Act appears scarcely to have been used in this context (Balogh and Others, cited above, \u00a7 59) and the Government have not identified any examples of the use of either remedy to show how they function and, more importantly, to demonstrate their effectiveness (see, a contrario, Pallanich v. Austria, no. 30160\/96, \u00a7 30, 30\u00a0January 2001).<\/p>\n

21. Given the length of the restitution proceedings, the applicants should not be expected to lodge yet another action, namely an action for damages under the State Liability Act, as this would place an excessive burden on them, taking into account the subsequent duration of such proceedings and any supplementary legal costs and expenses (see, mutatis mutandis, Edward and Cynthia Zammit Maempel v. Malta, no. 3356\/15, \u00a7 85, 15 January 2019).<\/p>\n

22. Accordingly, the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion must also be dismissed.<\/p>\n

23. 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.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7\u00a043, ECHR 2000-VII).<\/p>\n

24. 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d requirement.<\/p>\n

25. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n

26. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n

\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

27. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Balogh and Others, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

28. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n

2. Decides that the applicants\u2019 heirs (see appended table) have locus standi in the proceedings;<\/p>\n

3. Declares the applications admissible;<\/p>\n

4. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article\u00a06 \u00a7 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of the administrative proceedings;<\/p>\n

5. Holds<\/p>\n

(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table;<\/p>\n

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 December 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

_________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong><\/p>\n

List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/p>\n

(excessive length of administrative proceedings)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
No.<\/strong><\/td>\nApplication no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Start of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\nEnd of proceedings<\/strong><\/td>\nTotal length<\/strong><\/p>\n

Levels of jurisdiction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Domestic court<\/strong><\/p>\n

File number<\/strong><\/p>\n

Domestic award<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)<\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage per applicant \/ household<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[2]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

1.<\/td>\n7918\/19<\/p>\n

31\/01\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Imrich BALOGH*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1929<\/p>\n

The applicant died in May 2019<\/p>\n

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:<\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Pavol BALOGH<\/em><\/p>\n

1957<\/p>\n

Al\u017ebeta BALOGHOV\u00c1<\/em><\/p>\n

1937<\/p>\n

Anna B\u00cdR\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1948<\/p>\n

Alexander FEKETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1939<\/p>\n

Franti\u0161ek FEKETE*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1944<\/p>\n

The applicant died in 2021<\/p>\n

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:<\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

S\u00e1ra Feketeov\u00e1<\/em><\/p>\n

1948<\/p>\n

Szilvia F\u00fcri Fekete<\/em><\/p>\n

1977<\/p>\n

T\u00edmea T\u00f3thov\u00e1<\/em><\/p>\n

1969<\/p>\n

Gabriel FEKETE*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1939<\/p>\n

The applicant died in 2021<\/p>\n

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:<\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Janka Csehov\u00e1<\/em><\/p>\n

1967<\/p>\n

Peter Fekete<\/em><\/p>\n

1969<\/p>\n

Ivan Fekete<\/em><\/p>\n

1971<\/p>\n

L\u00e1szl\u00f3 FEKETE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/p>\n

Ferdinand FORR\u00d3*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1957<\/p>\n

The applicant died in 2020<\/p>\n

The following relative has the quality of heir:<\/p>\n

M\u00e1ria Pajorov\u00e1<\/em><\/p>\n

1964<\/p>\n

Al\u017ebeta G\u0150GHOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1939<\/p>\n

Al\u017ebeta G\u0150GHOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/p>\n

Juliana G\u0150GHOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1931<\/p>\n

Zsuzsanna HOFFER<\/strong><\/p>\n

1979<\/p>\n

S\u00e1ndor MAROSI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/p>\n

\u0160tefan MAROSI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/p>\n

Zolt\u00e1n N\u00c9VERI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1952<\/p>\n

Ter\u00e9zia N\u00c9VERIOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1941<\/p>\n

M\u00e1ria SZAB\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1954<\/p>\n

Roz\u00e1lia SZAB\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1930<\/p>\n

Margita T\u00d3THOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1936<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Katar\u00edna BAR\u00c1THOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1951<\/p>\n

Lucia DOMJ\u00c1NOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Franti\u0161ek F\u00d6RD\u0150S<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/p>\n

Imrich F\u00d6RD\u0150S<\/strong><\/p>\n

1948<\/p>\n

Jozef F\u00d6RD\u0150S<\/strong><\/p>\n

1945<\/p>\n

Gabriel MADAR\u00c1SZ<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

Ildik\u00f3 STEFANKOVICSOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Daniela KRAJ\u010cIOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/p>\n

\u0160arlota VARGOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Gabriel NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

Ladislav NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

Roman NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1978\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Margita PINT\u00c9ROV\u00c1*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1951<\/p>\n

The applicant died in April 2019<\/p>\n

The following relative has the quality of heir:<\/p>\n

Tom\u00e1\u0161 Pint\u00e9r<\/em><\/p>\n

1975\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Anik\u00f3 \u0160\u00c1LI NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1982<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Alexander OBONYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/p>\n

Tibor OBONYA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Orsolya BEIGELBECK<\/strong><\/p>\n

1981<\/p>\n

Katalin VARGA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1952<\/p>\n

Norbert VARGA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1976<\/td>\n

23\/12\/2004<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

pending<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

More than 16 years and 10\u00a0months<\/p>\n

2 levels of jurisdiction<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Constitutional Court<\/p>\n

IV. US 248\/2018<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

300<\/td>\n

7,500<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2.<\/td>\n43062\/20<\/p>\n

21\/09\/2020<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Csaba ANGYAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1986<\/p>\n

Gabriel ANGYAL<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/p>\n

Angela T\u00d3THOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1973<\/p>\n

Gizela BACHRAT\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/p>\n

Helena BALOGHOV\u00c1*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1936<\/p>\n

The applicant died in March 2021<\/p>\n

The following relative has the quality of heir:<\/p>\n

Ildik\u00f3 T\u00e1nczosov\u00e1<\/em><\/p>\n

1968<\/p>\n

Eva FORR\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/p>\n

Franti\u0161ek HORV\u00c1TH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1930<\/p>\n

R\u00f3bert HORV\u00c1TH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/p>\n

Tibor HORV\u00c1TH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1960<\/p>\n

Anton MADARI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1942<\/p>\n

Kl\u00e1ra MELEGOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1951<\/p>\n

Anna MOLN\u00c1ROV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1942<\/p>\n

Zuzana MOLN\u00c1ROV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

Gejza NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1954<\/p>\n

Jen\u0151 NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1948<\/p>\n

Koloman NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1963<\/p>\n

\u0160tefan NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/p>\n

Tibor NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/p>\n

Ladislav N\u00c9VERI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/p>\n

Tibor N\u00c9VERI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1940<\/p>\n

Juliana STREDOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1943<\/p>\n

J\u00e1n SZAB\u00d3*<\/strong><\/p>\n

Born in 1934<\/p>\n

The applicant died in 2020<\/p>\n

The following relatives have the quality of heirs:<\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

D\u00f3ra Baloghov\u00e1<\/em><\/p>\n

1997<\/p>\n

Gertr\u00fad Viderman<\/em><\/p>\n

1963<\/p>\n

Jolana SZAB\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1939<\/p>\n

Ladislav SZ\u00c9PE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1941<\/p>\n

Jozef T\u00d3TH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1957<\/p>\n

L\u00edvia T\u00d3THOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/p>\n

M\u00e1ria T\u00d3THOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1952<\/p>\n

Ter\u00e9zia VARGOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1959<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Gabriela ANGYALOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/p>\n

M\u00e1ria CSENTEOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1953<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Roz\u00e1lia CSENTEOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/p>\n

Al\u017ebeta M\u00c9SZ\u00c1ROSOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1948<\/p>\n

Helena SZAB\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1950<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

M\u00e1ria CSONTOSOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1935<\/p>\n

Angelika G\u0150GHOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1964<\/p>\n

Katar\u00edna RIG\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1953<\/p>\n

Magdal\u00e9na SIV\u00c1KOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1952<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Marta HANKOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1968<\/p>\n

Koloman SZAB\u00d3<\/strong><\/p>\n

1943<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Gust\u00e1v KISS<\/strong><\/p>\n

1980<\/p>\n

Jolana KISSOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1955<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Csilla KOV\u00c1CSOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/p>\n

Vojtech N\u00c9METH<\/strong><\/p>\n

1967<\/p>\n

Edita N\u00c9METHOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Peter LECZK\u00c9SI<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/p>\n

Margita LECZK\u00c9SIOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1944<\/p>\n

Zuzana SZAB\u00d3OV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1972<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Peter VAJDA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1985<\/p>\n

Zsolt VAJDA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1969<\/p>\n

Katar\u00edna VAJDOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1966<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

\u0160tefan VARGA<\/strong><\/p>\n

1962<\/p>\n

Helena VARGOV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1937<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n

Household<\/u><\/p>\n

Silvia FEH\u00c9ROV\u00c1<\/strong><\/p>\n

1956<\/p>\n

Ladislav SZAB\u00d3<\/strong><\/p>\n

1961<\/td>\n

23\/12\/2004<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

pending<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

More than 16 years and 10\u00a0months<\/p>\n

2 levels of jurisdiction<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

Constitutional Court<\/p>\n

II. US 392\/2019<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

300<\/td>\n

7,500<\/td>\n250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

FIRST SECTION CASE OF BALOGH AND OTHERS v. SLOVAKIA (Applications nos. 7918\/19 and 43062\/20) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 16 December 2021 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Balogh and Others v. Slovakia,…<\/p>\n

Read more →<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17690","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17690"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17690\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17691,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17690\/revisions\/17691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}