FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13325/20
Ádám MIODEK against Hungary
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, 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.
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 22 October 2020.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
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]
13325/20
24/02/2020
Ádám MIODEK
28/08/1992
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts failed to conduct the obligatory six-month review within the statutory time-limit, furthermore they missed to decide upon the applicant’s appeal by more than four weeks.
23/07/2020
31/08/2020
2,500
13326/20
24/02/2020
János LAKATOS
01/10/1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
29/08/2020
07/07/2020
2,100
14142/20
10/03/2020
Krisztián KURUCZ
10/03/1984
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
01/09/2020
31/07/2020
3,100
14461/20
11/03/2020
Ernő PUPORKA
04/03/1971
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - It seems that the domestic courts on prolongation did not review the detention in a timely manner. The six-month review was conducted with a 16 day delay.
28/08/2020
03/07/2020
2,500
16011/20
23/03/2020
Norbert László HEVÉR
24/04/1982
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Even though the Criminal Procedural Code prescribes priority procedure in case the defendant is in detention, it took two months for the second instance to deliver its decisions (Budapest High Court decisions of 16/01/2019 and of 17/04/2019).
31/08/2020
28/07/2020
3,000
17909/20
09/04/2020
Zsolt János OLÁH
28/05/1974
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed multiple time-limits for the review of the applicant’s detention. First by 13 days then by over two months.
01/09/2020
23/07/2020
5,100
19006/20
23/04/2020
Gerben Jelmer DOORNBOSCH
15/04/1994
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 carried out with a delay of four weeks compared to the statutory time-limit.
31/08/2020
06/08/2020
5,200
20169/20
29/04/2020
Béla RAMOS
27/06/1974
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts failed to decide upon the applicant’s appeal request on multiple occasions, furthermore they missed the statutory six-month and 12-month reviews by more than three weeks.
28/08/2020
07/07/2020
5,100
20171/20
29/04/2020
Tímea PÁSZTOR
21/07/1989
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts failed to adhere to the statutory time-limits when they missed the obligatory six-month and 12-month reviews of the applicant’s detention by more than three weeks.
27/08/2020
07/07/2020
5,100
20373/20
04/05/2020
Tamás OLÁH
23/09/1992
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The statutory time-limit for the obligatory six-month and 12-month reviews was not kept by the court. Furthermore the applicant’s appeals were decided upon with 12 days delay.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of pre-trial detention.
29/08/2020
22/07/2020
3,000
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy