CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 68366/14 Béla BANGÓ against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   April 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants and their representatives is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). In application no.   61306/16, the applicant’s complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The Court received friendly-settlement declarations under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Hungary in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 cases. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 16 May 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     68366/14 09/10/2014 Béla Bangó 14/10/1982 Fahidi Gergely Budapest   09/01/2019 02/11/2018 4,000     75759/14 29/11/2014 Attila Fekete 20/08/1977 Fahidi Gergely Budapest   07/01/2019 02/11/2018 4,000     75760/14 29/11/2014 István Frank 05/07/1981 Fahidi Gergely Budapest   04/03/2019 02/11/2018 4,000     45187/15 07/09/2015 Gyula Sziky 06/01/1966 Dobos Brigitta Kecskemét   26/02/2019 03/01/2019 1,400     61114/15 05/12/2015 Csaba Tóth 01/04/1979 Kovács Levente Miskolc   26/02/2019 24/10/2018 1,300     20010/16 05/04/2016 Lajos Molnár 31/08/1962 Mohácsy Lénárd László Gyor   11/01/2019 03/01/2019 3,900     48210/16 01/08/2016 Zoltán Jakab 06/07/1990 Cech András Budapest   25/01/2019 17/01/2019 3,100     61306/16 18/10/2016 Gyula Kiss 20/09/1975     Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. It appears that, on prolongations of detention, the applicant could not always access the relevant documents in good time and that the reasoning was insufficiently individualised.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - It appears that, on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. 29/01/2016 the court delivered its decision in 16 days instead of the prescribed 3 days). 14/03/2019 14/01/2019 4,700     82893/17 15/11/2017 Tamás Kocsis 09/11/1989 Varga Katalin Zalaegerszeg   26/02/2019 04/12/2018 2,000   43491/18 03/09/2018 Attila Szaniszlai 04/12/1974 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   30/01/2019 22/01/2019 3,000   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.