FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9634/20
Noah EGUAVEON against Hungary
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 March 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 15 April 2021.
Viktoriya MaradudinaAlena Poláčková
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
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]
9634/20
29/01/2020
Noah EGUAVEON
1988
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts exceeded the statutory time‑limit regarding the 1-year- mandatory review by 12 days (Fővárosi Ítélőtábla 2.Bel.10.529/2019/4.).
11/02/2021
08/06/2020
3,400
38180/20
18/08/2020
Gábor Tibor OLÁH
1985
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts missed the obligatory 6-month review deadline by more than 1 month and 20 days.
08/02/2021
03/11/2020
5,400
39252/20
13/08/2020
Petrit FEJZULAHI
1983
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law for length of pre-trial detention.
08/02/2021
17/11/2020
3,600
44201/20
30/09/2020
Pál István RAVASZ
1949
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal was decided upon with a two-month delay. The one-year review has also been delayed.
19/02/2021
08/01/2021
4,400
44539/20
22/09/2020
János VARGA
1965
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6 months review was carried out with a delay of 18 days. The appeal of the applicant was decided with a delay of two months.
24/02/2021
11/01/2021
3,500
44985/20
22/09/2020
Albert KERTÉSZ
1997
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory 6-month review was carried out with a 64-day delay. The one‑year review was carried out with an 88-day delay.
11/02/2021
03/12/2020
3,500
44991/20
14/09/2020
Norbert SZŐKE
1988
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
12/02/2021
14/01/2021
4,000
45003/20
14/09/2020
András RUSZÓ
1991
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month detention review was missed by the courts by more than 2 months and the obligatory one-year review by more than 10 days.
24/02/2021
11/01/2021
3,700
49687/20
29/10/2020
Richárd RÁCZ
1982
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
11/02/2021
11/01/2021
2,600
49688/20
29/10/2020
Gábor RÁCZ
1976
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
11/02/2021
10/02/2021
2,600
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy