FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 26999/20
László JAKAB against Hungary
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 11 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 1 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
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]
26999/20
15/06/2020
László JAKAB
1978
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal was only dealt with
54 days after the statutory deadline.
11/01/2021
06/10/2020
3,500
31506/20
13/07/2020
Lajos LADÁNYI
1984
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law for the protraction of detention.
21/12/2020
19/11/2020
3,800
31986/20
14/07/2020
László ANTÓNI
1980
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
16/11/2020
21/12/2020
2,000
33738/20
27/07/2020
Lajos ZEMLÉNYI
1986
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed the statutory deadline of the 6-month review by 2 days, the one-year review by
22 days and had missed the deadline to deal with the applicant’s appeal on multiple occasions.
21/12/2020
11/01/2021
4,700
33772/20
27/07/2020
Mátyás BALOG
1992
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
21/12/2020
08/12/2020
3,900
36591/20
11/08/2020
Ferenc KÓNYA
1992
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
23/11/2020
20/11/2020
2,600
36932/20
12/08/2020
Gábor PUSOMA
1991
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed the obligatory 6-month review deadline by almost 3 months.
17/12/2020
05/11/2020
3,400
40285/20
04/09/2020
Arnold MINYÁK
1994
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed multiple statutory deadlines. The obligatory 6-month review was missed by 10 days, the obligatory one-year review by 88 days and the 1,5-year review by more than 35 days.
15/01/2021
26/11/2020
5,200
42481/20
10/09/2020
Dániel Krisztián MOHÁCSI
1991
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.
03/02/2021
16/12/2020
3,500
42493/20
07/09/2020
József MINYÁK
1971
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review was missed by 10 days. The one-year review was missed by 88 days.
15/01/2021
25/11/2020
5,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy