CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 novembre 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sDD6F64E2 { width:137.11pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 5887/20 Zsolt KIRÁLY against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5   November 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Wennerström, 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings 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 26 November 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Krzysztof Wojtyczek   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year 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]     5887/20 16/01/2020 Zsolt KIRÁLY 1976 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings. 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 (Budapesti XVIII. és XIX. Kerületi Bíróság 4.B.XVIII.684/2018/38-II on 19 June 2019). Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - The Budai Central District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 10/01/2017 in its decision no. 15.Bny.126/2017/2. He has been in pre-trial detention since then with a short pause between 11/05/2018 and 15/05/2018, when he was in house arrest. The courts prolonged the pre-trial detention more than six times even after he had been indicted on 11/06/2018. The applicant always challenged the decisions, but in vain. The case is still pending before the first instance court. 04/06/2020 14/05/2020 5,400     5922/20 16/01/2020 László KIRÁLY 1974 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings. 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 (Budapesti XVIII. és XIX. Kerületi Bíróság 4.B.XVIII.684/2018/38-II on 19 June 2019). Art. 5 (3) - excessive length of pre-trial detention - The Budai Central District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 10/01/2017 in its decision no. 15.Bny.126/2017/2. He has been in pre-trial detention since then with a short pause between 11/05/2018 and 15/05/2018, when he was in house arrest. The courts prolonged the pre-trial detention more than six times even after he had been indicted on 11/06/2018. The applicant always challenged the decisions, but in vain. The case is still pending before the first instance court. 04/06/2020 14/05/2020 5,400     5956/20 13/01/2020 Károly GYÜRE 1982 Lakatos Viktor Budapest   17/09/2020 27/05/2020 7,300     10559/20 13/01/2020 Klaudia GYÜRE 1981 Lakatos Viktor Budapest   17/09/2020 22/06/2020 8,200     12630/20 21/02/2020 Tibor BANGÓ 1985 Gál-Bene Ildikó Nagykáta   27/08/2020 21/07/2020 3,900     14258/20 02/03/2018 Árpád Zoltán BODA 1989 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 28/08/2020 15/09/2020 5,200     14260/20 10/03/2020 Gábor ÁBRAHÁM 1971 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 07/07/2020 22/06/2020 3,900     14467/20 11/03/2020 Tamás VIRÁG 1971 Schill Szabolcs Budapest   01/09/2020 30/06/2020 9,100     17435/20 20/04/2020 János MADARÁSZ 1968 Patyi Zsuzsanna Budapest   25/08/2020 05/10/2020 13,000   21188/20 20/04/2020 Gyula JÓNI 1980 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings. 24/07/2020 06/07/2020 3,300   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.