FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 68366/14
Béla BANGÓ against Hungary
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 25 April 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
Péter Paczolay, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, 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 application no. 61306/16, the applicant’s complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
The Court received friendly-settlement declarations 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 16 May 2019.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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]
68366/14
09/10/2014
Béla Bangó
14/10/1982
Fahidi Gergely
Budapest
09/01/2019
02/11/2018
4,000
75759/14
29/11/2014
Attila Fekete
20/08/1977
Fahidi Gergely
Budapest
07/01/2019
02/11/2018
4,000
75760/14
29/11/2014
István Frank
05/07/1981
Fahidi Gergely
Budapest
04/03/2019
02/11/2018
4,000
45187/15
07/09/2015
Gyula Sziky
06/01/1966
Dobos Brigitta
Kecskemét
26/02/2019
03/01/2019
1,400
61114/15
05/12/2015
Csaba Tóth
01/04/1979
Kovács Levente
Miskolc
26/02/2019
24/10/2018
1,300
20010/16
05/04/2016
Lajos Molnár
31/08/1962
Mohácsy Lénárd László
Gyor
11/01/2019
03/01/2019
3,900
48210/16
01/08/2016
Zoltán Jakab
06/07/1990
Cech András
Budapest
25/01/2019
17/01/2019
3,100
61306/16
18/10/2016
Gyula Kiss
20/09/1975
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention. It appears that, on prolongations of detention, the applicant could not always access the relevant documents in good time and that the reasoning was insufficiently individualised.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - It appears that, on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. 29/01/2016 the court delivered its decision in 16 days instead of the prescribed 3 days).
14/03/2019
14/01/2019
4,700
82893/17
15/11/2017
Tamás Kocsis
09/11/1989
Varga Katalin
Zalaegerszeg
26/02/2019
04/12/2018
2,000
43491/18
03/09/2018
Attila Szaniszlai
04/12/1974
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
30/01/2019
22/01/2019
3,000
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy