CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 19 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 } .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 } .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 } .s18CD88E { height:62.85pt } .s3A3C6A58 { height:2.1pt } .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. 60879/19 Akwo Mbiakop ITOE against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19   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. The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, 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 10 December 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]     60879/19 18/11/2019 Akwo Mbiakop ITOE 1984 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   27/08/2020 09/04/2020 3,400     64253/19 09/12/2019 Béla Ferenc JAKAB 1981 Sándor JAKAB 15/03/1988 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   15/10/2020 03/07/2020 4,600     2416/20 17/12/2019 Lajos SZÉPVÖLGYI 1979 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   09/10/2020 08/06/2020 2,100     6478/20 23/01/2020 Péter Lajos NAGY 1967 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review was carried out with a delay of 1 year and 5 months. 20/10/2020 24/06/2020 2,900     6636/20 22/01/2020 Zoltán MÁGA 1981 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was not supervised within the required statutory time-limit by the courts. 03/08/2020 02/06/2020 2,700     7822/20 28/01/2020 Gyula ALBERTI 1986 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   09/10/2020 18/06/2020 3,100     15477/20 19/03/2020 Azim TARAHL 1988 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - On prolongation, the domestic courts did not adhere to the statutory time-limits for review, i.e. the one-year review was conducted 2,5 months later than prescribed by the applicable law. 17/09/2020 03/07/2020 3,700     17427/20 14/04/2020 András LAKATOS 1991 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was not subject to review within the statutory deadline. On two occasions the domestic courts missed the deadline by more than 2 months. 12/10/2020 03/08/2020 3,000     20282/20 27/04/2020 Zsolt FARKAS 1967 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts missed the deadline for review of the applicant’s appeals against the pre-trial detention on 3 different occasion by more than 2 weeks, furthermore they missed the deadline for the obligatory six-month review. 27/08/2020 18/09/2020 3,000   20910/20 05/05/2020 Attila BAGÓ 1971 István BÍRÓ 1964 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The review of the applicants’ detention was excessive. The obligatory six-month and one-year review was not carried out in a timely manner, furthermore the courts had missed on multiple occasions the statutory deadline for the review of their appeals.   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - No effective remedy regarding duration of pre-trial detention. 10/09/2020 22/07/2020 4,100   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.