CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 avril 2021

.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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .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 } .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. 30536/20 László MÁRTON against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8   April   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 29 April 2021.   {signature_p_2}   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]     30536/20 01/07/2020 László MÁRTON 1986 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   18/03/2021 12/10/2020 2,600     33033/20 20/07/2020 Erik ILLÉS 1988 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory one-year review was carried out with a two-and-a-half-month delay. Furthermore, the review of his appeal was not carried out within the statutory time-limit (the delay was 1.5 month). 18/03/2021 09/12/2020 4,200     33040/20 20/07/2020 Lajos ILLÉS 1952 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – The applicant’s obligatory one-year review was carried out with a more than 2 months delay. Furthermore, the review of his appeal was not carried out within the statutory time-limit (the delay was 1.5 month). 16/03/2021 09/12/2020 4,200     33650/20 28/07/2020 Tamás KOVÁCS 1989 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   10/03/2021 02/03/2021 1,700     35515/20 03/08/2020 István HORVÁTH 1999 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   04/03/2021 22/01/2021 3,000     38177/20 18/08/2020 Lívia MAKKAI 1992 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts have missed the following deadline: the six-month obligatory review was carried out with a delay of 20 days.     09/03/2021 29/10/2020 5,400     41173/20 09/09/2020 Arkadiusz Piotr PAWLINSKI 1982 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   03/02/2021 05/03/2021 2,600     41940/20 29/08/2020 Zsolt NÉMETH 1993 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The six- month obligatory review deadline was missed by the domestic courts by more than 2 months. 18/03/2021 07/12/2020 4,100     44008/20 10/09/2020 Tibor CSIK 1994 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory one-year review of the detention did not take place on time (it took place with a 51-day delay).   18/03/2021 12/01/2021 3,900   44972/20 16/09/2020 László LÉVAI 1982 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – While extending the applicant’s detention, the appellate courts did not always meet the requirement of expeditious proceedings: on 26/03/2020 the Budapest-Capital Regional Court delivered its decision no. 24.Beüf.6571/2020/4. more than 3 months after the first instance decision. The undue delay was acknowledged by the second instance court in the decision. Moreover, the obligatory one-year review of the detention did not take place on time. 24/02/2021 18/12/2020 3,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.