FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14139/20
Eziz SARWAR against Hungary
and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 December 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.
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 14 January 2021.
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]
14139/20
09/03/2020
Eziz SARWAR
1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
04/11/2020
20/07/2020
2,200
15482/20
18/03/2020
János Zoltán GYÁNTI
1978
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention -on prolongations of detention, the second instance court did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 23/05/2018 the Budapest High Court delivered its decision no. 20.Bnyf.10389/2018/4 1,5 months after the first instance decision).
02/11/2020
21/09/2020
2,500
22016/20
12/05/2020
Róbert László SERES
1990
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicants obligatory 6-month and 12-month detention reviews were carried out belatedly by the domestic courts and on both occasions the time-limits for review were exceeded by 14 days and 36 days, respectively.
Art. 13 - No effective remedy for excessive length of pre-trial detention.
21/10/2020
14/09/2020
3,900
24574/20
20/05/2020
Van Cuu PHAM
1977
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s statutory detention review was not complied with by the domestic courts.
Art. 13 - No effective remedy for excessive length of pre-trial detention.
16/11/2020
06/10/2020
5,100
24601/20
29/05/2020
Krisztián LAKATOS
1992
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s obligatory review was not complied with by the domestic courts on multiple occasions. There was a period of more than 8 months when review was not carried out, furthermore his appeals were also decided, with a delay of more than 3 weeks each time.
15/10/2020
17/09/2020
6,800
24623/20
20/05/2020
Hai Dang LUU
1969
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s statutory reviews were not carried out in a timely manner. The court missed the 6-month deadline by more than 2 weeks and the 12-month deadline by more than 3 weeks.
Art. 13 - No effective remedy for excessive length of pre-trial detention.
04/11/2020
08/10/2020
5,100
25822/20
15/06/2020
Ottó Zsolt VICHA
1989
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
26/10/2020
05/11/2020
2,700
25824/20
16/06/2020
Kálmán NAGY
1977
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts did not comply with the statutory deadline for review on multiple occasions. The applicant’s appeal was dealt with 1,5 months after the deadline had passed. The obligatory 6-month review was delayed by more than 43 days, the 12-month review by more than 180 days and the 18-month review by more than 236 days.
07/10/2020
28/09/2020
5,600
26351/20
16/06/2020
Árpád KOVÁCS
1975
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
04/11/2020
29/10/2020
3,900
27502/20
09/06/2020
István FARKAS
1952
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
04/11/2020
07/10/2020
4,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy