CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 mai 2023

.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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .s5AAEE4F1 { width:148.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE3DA80B3 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sECD123DC { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 18346/22 Márió HÁJAS against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   May   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , 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 25 May 2023.     Attila Teplán   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]     18346/22 25/03/2022 Márió HÁJAS 1994 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Several deadlines for the statutory review of the applicant’s detention order were significantly missed.. Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings. Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings. 17/03/2023 20/02/2023 6,900     22501/22 28/04/2022 Mária JAKAB 1976 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   29/03/2023 04/10/2022 3,900     28020/22 02/06/2022 Zsolt VIDÁK 1990 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   13/02/2023 02/12/2022 2,600     39005/22 01/08/2022 László Gyula ADORJÁN 1952 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   13/02/2023 03/04/2023 3,900     39818/22 11/08/2022 Mariann BOROS 1993 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   21/03/2023 16/03/2023 3,600     41460/22 23/08/2022 László NOVÁKI 1982 Karsai Dániel András Budapest   29/03/2023 16/03/2023 3,400     47841/22 20/09/2022 Roland BARANYI 1993 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Several deadlines in reviewing the applicant’s detention were severely delayed. 03/04/2023 22/02/2023 5,100     52590/22 28/10/2022 Henrik SZILÁGYI 1978 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   24/03/2023 17/02/2023 3,600     54672/22 21/11/2022 András PANDÁK 1977 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest   23/03/2023 23/02/2023 3,600   57415/22 07/12/2022 Alashkar Mohamed ABDELAZIZ 1986 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 1-year review of his detention has been significantly delayed. 28/03/2023 06/03/2023 4,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.