CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; 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 } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 4834/20 Zoltán HORVÁTH against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3   September 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 some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Court received the 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 24 September 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 pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1]     4834/20 13/01/2020 Zoltán HORVÁTH 23/07/1982 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   07/07/2020 06/07/2020 2,300     6479/20 22/01/2020 Mercédesz PÉNZES 16/03/1993 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   23/07/2020 09/06/2020 3,000     6630/20 21/01/2020 Márk HEGYI 04/06/1998 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The court exceeded the statutory time-limit regarding the 6-month mandatory review by more than 1 month (Pesti Központi Kerületi Bíróság 9.B.VIII.11.610/2018/25). Furthermore, even though the Criminal Procedural Code prescribes priority procedure in case the defendant is in detention, it took more than 1 month for the second instance to decide upon the appeals against the prolongations (i.e. it took 1 month 25 days for the Budapest High Court acting as second instance to render its decision no. 23.Beüf.5058/2019/2 of 10/01/2019.) 15/07/2020 06/07/2020 3,500     6882/20 23/01/2020 László LAKATOS 30/08/1970 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was not reviewed within the statutory time limit on multiple occasions. 23/07/2020 03/06/2020 3,500     8667/20 03/02/2020 Chrisztopher KONKOLY 28/05/1995 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - The courts exceeded the statutory time-limit regarding the 6-month mandatory review by more than 3 months (Hevesi Járásbíróság 3.B.82/2019/2). 15/07/2020 02/06/2020 2,900     11092/20 20/02/2020 László KURUCZ 01/10/1974 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - The courts exceeded the statutory time-limit by more than a month in relation to the mandatory 1-year review (Debreceni Ítélőtábla decision no. Bel.I.350/2019/9. on 09/07/2019). 15/07/2020 02/06/2020 3,000     12213/20 25/02/2020 Kálmán TURRÓ 27/08/1980 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - No review within the statutory deadline. 16/07/2020 08/06/2020 4,700     13309/20 05/03/2020 István KISS 18/06/1969 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - No review within the statutory deadline. 16/07/2020 22/06/2020 3,000     13316/20 05/03/2020 Norbert KOVÁCS 09/10/1975 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - No review within the statutory deadline. 30/07/2020 09/06/2020 4,700   15122/20 12/03/2020 József Zsolt BERKES 27/09/1977 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   29/07/2020 28/07/2020 1,800   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.