CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 février 2025

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .sB81C5FD1 { width:141.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; 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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .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 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 14268/24 Krisztián TENKE against Hungary and 9 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6   February 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Gediminas Sagatys , President ,   Stéphane Pisani,   Juha Lavapuro , 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 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings 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 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 6 March 2025.     Attila Teplán   Gediminas Sagatys   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) 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]     14268/24 10/05/2024 Krisztián TENKE 1996   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 13/01/2025 23/09/2024 2,000     14674/24 14/05/2024 Marió MAGDA 1984   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 14/01/2025 23/09/2024 3,600     14993/24 02/05/2024 Zsolt AJTAI 1980   Frank Evelyn Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 15/10/2024 12/12/2024 1,800     17531/24 08/06/2024 Zoltánné SZILÁGYI 1994   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 05/12/2024 02/01/2025 4,100     18806/24 13/06/2024 Béla FEHÉR 1964   Szabó Gábor Göd Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 16/12/2024 15/11/2024 5,200     20128/24 02/07/2024 Zoltán TÓTH 1975   Paulusz Bogáta Budapest   16/12/2024 11/10/2024 2,600     23098/24 02/08/2024 Bence KOVÁCS 1995         10/01/2025 14/11/2024 2,600     23481/24 06/08/2024 János PAPP 1987   Nagy Gábor Budapest   10/01/2025 06/11/2024 2,000     24428/24 09/08/2024 János SZENDREI 1993   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 10/01/2025 04/11/2024 2,600   25586/24 28/08/2024 Dávid MAKA 1994   Hatlaczki Gyula Nagykáta Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings 12/12/2024 25/10/2024 5,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.