FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 64876/19
József Szeverin FAZEKAS against Hungary
and 8 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Wennerström, 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 some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention (for details see the appended table).
The Court received the 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 26 November 2020.
Liv TigerstedtKrzysztof Wojtyczek
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]
64876/19
04/12/2019
József Szeverin FAZEKAS
1974
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 31/05/2016 in Germany on the basis of international arrest warrant of 04/02/2016 issued by the Hungarian authorities. The criminal proceedings are still pending before the second instance.
09/10/2020
15/06/2020
5,200
10209/20
03/02/2020
Adil AYOUB
1959
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for money-laundering on 25/01/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.
28/08/2020
03/07/2020
5,100
10612/20
17/02/2020
Tibor OLÁH
1991
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for robbery on 16/06/2016. No first instance decision has been rendered yet.
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. on 22/05/2019 the Pest Central District Court delivered its decision no. 24.B.VIII.12.310/2017/62-I 49 days after the deadline).
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.
25/08/2020
23/07/2020
5,100
14141/20
10/03/2020
János KEDÉLYVÁRI
1980
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 09/03/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 08/11/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 2.Bel.10.002/2020/4 76 days after the deadline).
01/09/2020
20/07/2020
5,600
15113/20
16/03/2020
Sándor PUSZTAI
1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongation of detention the domestic courts did not always meet the statutory deadline, i.e. the 1 year review was late by 48 days.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings - the investigation was lodged on 27/07/2016 and no first instance decision has been rendered yet.
29/08/2020
14/07/2020
5,900
15119/20
16/03/2020
Attila KUTKA
1991
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 11/01/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 06/11/2018 the Balassagyarmat High Court delivered its decision no. 19.B.61/2018/112 18 days after the deadline, and on 06/06/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 1.Bel.10.405/2019/2).
25/08/2020
20/07/2020
5,900
15123/20
16/03/2020
Yousef AHMED
1973
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for the first time on 23/03/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 11/14/2019 the Budapest High Court delivered its decision no. 29.Bel.11.829/2019/2 48 days after the deadline).
31/08/2020
11/09/2020
5,400
17451/20
20/03/2020
Attila KUTKA
1971
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 24/01/2017, since then the criminal proceedings against him are still pending before the first instance.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 06/06/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 1.Bel.10.405/2019/2 48 days after the deadline).
25/08/2020
15/07/2020
5,900
18987/20
23/04/2020
Ernő PUPOS
1987
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory six-month and 12-month detention reviews were not done within the time-limits. Furthermore the reviews of his appeals were not carried out within the statutory time-limit. The courts missed the deadline by several weeks on each occasion.
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The case is still pending before the first instance court and the applicant was arrested on 11/01/2017.
28/08/2020
28/07/2020
5,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy