CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 juin 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFD94178 { width:13.64pt; display:inline-block } .s24C787A2 { width:130.57pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24265/18 Roland Bertalan HAJAS against Hungary and 8 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25   June   2020 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, 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.   24265/18, a complaint based on the same facts was 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 July 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström 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 non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     24265/18 15/05/2018 Roland Bertalan HAJAS 16/01/1994 Pohárnok Barbara Budapest Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - On prolongations of detention, the applicant could not always access the relevant documents in good time and the reasoning was insufficiently individualised. 12/03/2020 03/04/2020 3,500     51166/19 23/09/2019 Krysztof TAMÁS 08/06/1994 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   06/03/2020 18/12/2019 2,300     55012/19 09/10/2019 Attila ACIKGŐZ 16/09/1991 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   21/04/2020 17/01/2020 2,500     55545/19 14/10/2019 Tibor DUDÁS 27/12/1965 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   05/03/2020 29/01/2020 2,200     55636/19 16/10/2019 István JAKAB 10/01/1974 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   05/06/2020 17/01/2020 2,600     56295/19 17/10/2019 István EGRI 17/04/1952 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   22/04/2020 07/01/2020 3,300     58355/19 29/10/2019 Lajos Gábor FARKAS 05/12/1976 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   20/04/2020 09/01/2020 2,900     61650/19 21/11/2019 Miklós NAGY 07/08/1968 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   16/04/2020 17/04/2020 4,000     2424/20 16/12/2019 Barnabás KARDOS 20/06/1983 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   30/04/2020 23/04/2020 3,400   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.