CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 décembre 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. 14139/20 Eziz SARWAR against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3   December 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 14 January 2021.   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]     14139/20 09/03/2020 Eziz SARWAR 1990 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   04/11/2020 20/07/2020 2,200     15482/20 18/03/2020 János Zoltán GYÁNTI 1978 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention -on prolongations of detention, the second instance court did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 23/05/2018 the Budapest High Court delivered its decision no. 20.Bnyf.10389/2018/4 1,5 months after the first instance decision). 02/11/2020 21/09/2020 2,500     22016/20 12/05/2020 Róbert László SERES 1990 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicants obligatory 6-month and 12-month detention reviews were carried out belatedly by the domestic courts and on both occasions the time-limits for review were exceeded by 14 days and 36 days, respectively.   Art. 13 - No effective remedy for excessive length of pre-trial detention. 21/10/2020 14/09/2020 3,900     24574/20 20/05/2020 Van Cuu PHAM 1977 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s statutory detention review was not complied with by the domestic courts.   Art. 13 - No effective remedy for excessive length of pre-trial detention.   16/11/2020 06/10/2020 5,100     24601/20 29/05/2020 Krisztián LAKATOS 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory review was not complied with by the domestic courts on multiple occasions. There was a period of more than 8 months when review was not carried out, furthermore his appeals were also decided, with a delay of more than 3 weeks each time. 15/10/2020 17/09/2020 6,800     24623/20 20/05/2020 Hai Dang LUU 1969 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s statutory reviews were not carried out in a timely manner. The court missed the 6-month deadline by more than 2 weeks and the 12-month deadline by more than 3 weeks.   Art. 13 - No effective remedy for excessive length of pre-trial detention. 04/11/2020 08/10/2020 5,100     25822/20 15/06/2020 Ottó Zsolt VICHA 1989 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   26/10/2020 05/11/2020 2,700     25824/20 16/06/2020 Kálmán NAGY 1977 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts did not comply with the statutory deadline for review on multiple occasions. The applicant’s appeal was dealt with 1,5 months after the deadline had passed. The obligatory 6-month review was delayed by more than 43 days, the 12-month review by more than 180 days and the 18-month review by more than 236 days. 07/10/2020 28/09/2020 5,600     26351/20 16/06/2020 Árpád KOVÁCS 1975 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   04/11/2020 29/10/2020 3,900   27502/20 09/06/2020 István FARKAS 1952 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   04/11/2020 07/10/2020 4,300   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.