CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; 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 } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2CEA1D7 { width:125.74pt; 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. 24627/20 Viktor JUHÁSZ against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21   January 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, 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 Article 5 § 4 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 11 February 2021.   Viktoriya Maradudina   Alena Poláčková   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]     24627/20 27/05/2020 Viktor JUHÁSZ 1983 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s judicial review was belated. Both the obligatory time-limit for the statutory review and the review of the applicant’s appeals were missed. On each occasion by more than two weeks at a time. 23/11/2020 17/09/2020 3,200     25003/20 09/06/2020 Tibor KANALAS 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   23/11/2020 24/11/2020 2,300     30106/20 30/06/2020 János SZABÓ 1975 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   01/12/2020 06/11/2020 2,900     30121/20 02/07/2020 Bertalan SZEMÁN 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   17/12/2020 02/11/2020 3,300     30136/20 07/07/2020 Károly Attila GALYAS 1982 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   17/12/2020 12/11/2020 3,900     30150/20 06/07/2020 Leonárd KANALAS 1992 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts had missed the statutory deadline to rule on the applicant’s appeal by more than two months. The courts had also missed the statutory deadline for the obligatory 6-month review by more than 5 days. 10/12/2020 13/10/2020 3,200     30152/20 06/07/2020 Károly MIKLÓS 1976 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts had missed the obligatory annual review by more than 33 days and the 1 year 6 months review by more than 55 days. 15/12/2020 19/10/2020 5,200     33742/20 27/07/2020 Milisav SUSKAVCEVIC 1969 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   18/11/2020 26/10/2020 2,700     35586/20 27/07/2020 János SZIJÁRTÓ 1969 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   18/11/2020 29/10/2020 2,300   35628/20 03/08/2020 Csaba SŐREGI 1973 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review was carried out belatedly on multiple occasions. The statutory deadline for the first review was carried out with a 124-day delay and the second review with a 3-month delay. 30/11/2020 27/10/2020 3,500   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.