CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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. 13325/20 Ádám MIODEK against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   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 22 October 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]     13325/20 24/02/2020 Ádám MIODEK 28/08/1992 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts failed to conduct the obligatory six-month review within the statutory time-limit, furthermore they missed to decide upon the applicant’s appeal by more than four weeks. 23/07/2020 31/08/2020 2,500     13326/20 24/02/2020 János LAKATOS 01/10/1990 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   29/08/2020 07/07/2020 2,100     14142/20 10/03/2020 Krisztián KURUCZ 10/03/1984 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   01/09/2020 31/07/2020 3,100     14461/20 11/03/2020 Ernő PUPORKA 04/03/1971 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - It seems that the domestic courts on prolongation did not review the detention in a timely manner. The six-month review was conducted with a 16 day delay. 28/08/2020 03/07/2020 2,500     16011/20 23/03/2020 Norbert László HEVÉR 24/04/1982 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Even though the Criminal Procedural Code prescribes priority procedure in case the defendant is in detention, it took two months for the second instance to deliver its decisions (Budapest High Court decisions of 16/01/2019 and of 17/04/2019). 31/08/2020 28/07/2020 3,000     17909/20 09/04/2020 Zsolt János OLÁH 28/05/1974 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed multiple time-limits for the review of the applicant’s detention. First by 13   days then by over two months. 01/09/2020 23/07/2020 5,100     19006/20 23/04/2020 Gerben Jelmer DOORNBOSCH 15/04/1994 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory six-month and 12-month detention reviews were carried out with a delay of four weeks compared to the statutory time-limit. 31/08/2020 06/08/2020 5,200     20169/20 29/04/2020 Béla RAMOS 27/06/1974 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts failed to decide upon the applicant’s appeal request on multiple occasions, furthermore they missed the statutory six-month and 12-month reviews by more than three weeks. 28/08/2020 07/07/2020 5,100     20171/20 29/04/2020 Tímea PÁSZTOR 21/07/1989 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts failed to adhere to the statutory time-limits when they missed the obligatory six-month and 12-month reviews of the applicant’s detention by more than three weeks. 27/08/2020 07/07/2020 5,100   20373/20 04/05/2020 Tamás OLÁH 23/09/1992 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The statutory time-limit for the obligatory six-month and 12-month reviews was not kept by the court. Furthermore the applicant’s appeals were decided upon with 12 days delay. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of pre-trial detention. 29/08/2020 22/07/2020 3,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.