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 } .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 } .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 } .s39109D2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .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 } .s2A77B0A7 { height:19.85pt } .sCD51EF65 { height:125.15pt } .s57FB5D7A { height:28.55pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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. 64876/19 József Szeverin FAZEKAS against Hungary and 8 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 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 (for details see the appended table). 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   5   §   3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) 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]     64876/19 04/12/2019 József Szeverin FAZEKAS 1974     Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 31/05/2016 in Germany on the basis of international arrest warrant of 04/02/2016 issued by the Hungarian authorities. The criminal proceedings are still pending before the second instance. 09/10/2020 15/06/2020 5,200     10209/20 03/02/2020 Adil AYOUB 1959 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for money-laundering on 25/01/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance. 28/08/2020 03/07/2020 5,100     10612/20 17/02/2020 Tibor OLÁH 1991 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for robbery on 16/06/2016. No first instance decision has been rendered yet.   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. on 22/05/2019 the Pest Central District Court delivered its decision no. 24.B.VIII.12.310/2017/62-I 49 days after the deadline).     Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.     25/08/2020 23/07/2020 5,100     14141/20 10/03/2020 János KEDÉLYVÁRI 1980 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 09/03/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 08/11/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 2.Bel.10.002/2020/4 76 days after the deadline). 01/09/2020 20/07/2020 5,600     15113/20 16/03/2020 Sándor PUSZTAI 1990 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongation of detention the domestic courts did not always meet the statutory deadline, i.e. the 1 year review was late by 48 days.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings   Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings - the investigation was lodged on 27/07/2016 and no first instance decision has been rendered yet. 29/08/2020 14/07/2020 5,900     15119/20 16/03/2020 Attila KUTKA 1991 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 11/01/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 06/11/2018 the Balassagyarmat High Court delivered its decision no. 19.B.61/2018/112 18 days after the deadline, and on 06/06/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no.   1.Bel.10.405/2019/2).   25/08/2020 20/07/2020 5,900     15123/20 16/03/2020 Yousef AHMED 1973 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for the first time on 23/03/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 11/14/2019 the Budapest High Court delivered its decision no. 29.Bel.11.829/2019/2 48 days after the deadline). 31/08/2020 11/09/2020 5,400     17451/20 20/03/2020 Attila KUTKA 1971 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 24/01/2017, since then the criminal proceedings against him are still pending before the first instance.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 06/06/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 1.Bel.10.405/2019/2 48 days after the deadline). 25/08/2020 15/07/2020 5,900     18987/20 23/04/2020 Ernő PUPOS 1987 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 not done within the time-limits. Furthermore the reviews of his appeals were not carried out within the statutory time-limit. The courts missed the deadline by several weeks on each occasion.   Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The case is still pending before the first instance court and the applicant was arrested on 11/01/2017. 28/08/2020 28/07/2020 5,900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.