CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 novembre 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .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 } .s102F6B48 { width:30.45pt; display:inline-block } .sA4DA97BF { width:145.44pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s976756B { height:53.15pt } .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. 49106/20 Domonkos Dávid NAGY against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   November 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Wennerström, President,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis, judges, and Attila Teplán, 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 2 December 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Attila Teplán   Erik Wennerström   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]     49106/20 22/10/2020 Domonkos Dávid NAGY 1989 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review at the obligatory 6-month deadline was not carried out at all. 18/03/2021 06/01/2021 2,900     53110/20 09/11/2020 János Oszkár FARAGÓ 1980 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory review was carried out with a delay of one month and three days. 16/06/2021 16/04/2021 4,600     424/21 14/12/2020 Tibor SZELLE 1994 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review of the detention was carried out with a delay of 14 days, while the 1-year review has not been carried out at all. At the time of the introduction of the complaint the delay was 96 days. 15/07/2021 04/03/2021 4,200     606/21 23/12/2020 Gábor OROSZ 1981 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest   02/06/2021 12/04/2021 2,600     1515/21 22/12/2020 Nikolic KOSTA 1979 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   14/10/2021 14/09/2021 5,200     1611/21 18/12/2020 Roland PÁL 1984 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review of the applicant’s detention was carried out with a delay of 110 days. 01/06/2021 27/04/2021 3,200     2689/21 22/12/2020 Norbert GERÓCS 1981 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal against the decision maintaining the detention after the indictment was decided with a delay of one month.   24/08/2021 28/06/2021 2,900     5764/21 08/01/2021 Miklós CZAKÓ 1986 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 6-month, 1-year and 1.5-year reviews of pre-trial detention took place 77 days, 20 days and 15 days after the expiry of the validity of the applicant’s detention. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon after more than 1-1.5 months, on two occasions. 23/08/2021 30/06/2021 4,400     9595/21 02/02/2021 János MUCSINAI 1988 Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 1-year review of his pre-trial detention took place 41 days after the expiry of the validity of the applicant’s detention. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon over more than 3 months, on two occasions. 06/08/2021 08/07/2021 3,000   10213/21 20/01/2021 Michał DUDEK 1985 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   14/10/2021 14/07/2021 3,300   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.