CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 mars 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 } .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 } .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. 26999/20 László JAKAB against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11   March 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 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 1 April 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 Date 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]     26999/20 15/06/2020 László JAKAB 1978 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal was only dealt with 54 days after the statutory deadline. 11/01/2021 06/10/2020 3,500     31506/20 13/07/2020 Lajos LADÁNYI 1984 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law for the protraction of detention. 21/12/2020 19/11/2020 3,800     31986/20 14/07/2020 László ANTÓNI 1980 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   16/11/2020 21/12/2020 2,000     33738/20 27/07/2020 Lajos ZEMLÉNYI 1986 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed the statutory deadline of the 6-month review by 2 days, the one-year review by 22 days and had missed the deadline to deal with the applicant’s appeal on multiple occasions. 21/12/2020 11/01/2021 4,700     33772/20 27/07/2020 Mátyás BALOG 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   21/12/2020 08/12/2020 3,900     36591/20 11/08/2020 Ferenc KÓNYA 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   23/11/2020 20/11/2020 2,600     36932/20 12/08/2020 Gábor PUSOMA 1991 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed the obligatory 6-month review deadline by almost 3 months. 17/12/2020 05/11/2020 3,400     40285/20 04/09/2020 Arnold MINYÁK 1994 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed multiple statutory deadlines. The obligatory 6-month review was missed by 10 days, the obligatory one-year review by 88 days and the 1,5-year review by more than 35 days. 15/01/2021 26/11/2020 5,200     42481/20 10/09/2020 Dániel Krisztián MOHÁCSI 1991 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory 6-month review was carried out with a 64-day delay. The one-year review was carried out with an 88-day delay. 03/02/2021 16/12/2020 3,500   42493/20 07/09/2020 József MINYÁK 1971 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review was missed by 10 days. The one-year review was missed by 88 days. 15/01/2021 25/11/2020 5,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.