FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24627/20
Viktor JUHÁSZ against Hungary
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 21 January 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 Article 5 § 4 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 11 February 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]
24627/20
27/05/2020
Viktor JUHÁSZ
1983
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s judicial review was belated. Both the obligatory time-limit for the statutory review and the review of the applicant’s appeals were missed. On each occasion by more than two weeks at a time.
23/11/2020
17/09/2020
3,200
25003/20
09/06/2020
Tibor KANALAS
1992
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
23/11/2020
24/11/2020
2,300
30106/20
30/06/2020
János SZABÓ
1975
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
01/12/2020
06/11/2020
2,900
30121/20
02/07/2020
Bertalan SZEMÁN
1992
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
17/12/2020
02/11/2020
3,300
30136/20
07/07/2020
Károly Attila GALYAS
1982
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
17/12/2020
12/11/2020
3,900
30150/20
06/07/2020
Leonárd KANALAS
1992
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts had missed the statutory deadline to rule on the applicant’s appeal by more than two months. The courts had also missed the statutory deadline for the obligatory 6-month review by more than 5 days.
10/12/2020
13/10/2020
3,200
30152/20
06/07/2020
Károly MIKLÓS
1976
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts had missed the obligatory annual review by more than 33 days and the 1 year 6 months review by more than 55 days.
15/12/2020
19/10/2020
5,200
33742/20
27/07/2020
Milisav SUSKAVCEVIC
1969
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/11/2020
26/10/2020
2,700
35586/20
27/07/2020
János SZIJÁRTÓ
1969
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
18/11/2020
29/10/2020
2,300
35628/20
03/08/2020
Csaba SŐREGI
1973
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review was carried out belatedly on multiple occasions. The statutory deadline for the first review was carried out with a 124-day delay and the second review with a 3-month delay.
30/11/2020
27/10/2020
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy