FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25731/20
Zsolt HEGEDŰS against Hungary
and 4 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 August 2022 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, 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”).
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 September 2022.
Attila Teplán Krzysztof Wojtyczek
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]
25731/20
10/06/2020
Zsolt HEGEDŰS
1999
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts have missed the statutory deadline for the review of the applicant’s detention on multiple occasions: the 6-month statutory review was delayed by 46 days, the 1-year review by 45 days.
03/02/2021
21/12/2021
3,900
12437/21
23/02/2021
László Pál MOLNÁR
1991
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not always satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 1-year review of his pre-trial detention did not take place at all.
06/01/2022
27/07/2021
3,700
17335/21
23/03/2021
Tünde Szilvia ROSTÁS
1984
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
26/07/2021
14/06/2021
2,700
19338/21
01/04/2021
Michael Adolfo LAPRÉ
1987
Czudar Balázs
Budapest
28/06/2022
10/01/2022
4,300
2962/22
21/12/2021
Richárd LAKATOS
1989
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 1-year review of the applicant’s detention took place with a two-month delay, while the 1.5-year review took place with a four-month delay.
28/06/2022
20/06/2022
3,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.