LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
MÁRTON AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 30536/20;33033/20;33040/20;33650/20;35515/20;38177/20;41173/20;41940/20;44008/20;44972/20 • ECHR ID: 001-209856
Document date: April 8, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
MÁRTON AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 30536/20;33033/20;33040/20;33650/20;35515/20;38177/20;41173/20;41940/20;44008/20;44972/20 • ECHR ID: 001-209856
Document date: April 8, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30536/20 László MÁRTON against Hungary and 9 other applications
(s ee appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 8 April 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 application s lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the formal declaration s accepting a friendly settlement of the case s ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicant s 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 applicant s 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 case s 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 29 April 2021 .
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková 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]
30536/20
01/07/2020
László MÁRTON
1986Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
18/03/2021
12/10/2020
2,600
33033/20
20/07/2020
Erik ILLÉS
1988Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant ’ s obligatory one-year review was carried out with a two-and-a-half-month delay. Furthermore, the review of his appeal was not carried out within the statutory time-limit (the delay was 1.5 month).
18/03/2021
09/12/2020
4,200
33040/20
20/07/2020
Lajos ILLÉS
1952Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention –
The applicant ’ s obligatory one-year review was carried out with a more than 2 months delay. Furthermore, the review of his appeal was not carried out within the statutory time-limit (the delay was 1.5 month).
16/03/2021
09/12/2020
4,200
33650/20
28/07/2020
Tamás KOVÁCS
1989Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
10/03/2021
02/03/2021
1,700
35515/20
03/08/2020
István HORVÁTH
1999Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
04/03/2021
22/01/2021
3,000
38177/20
18/08/2020
Lívia MAKKAI
1992Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts have missed the following deadline: the six-month obligatory review was carried out with a delay of
20 days.
09/03/2021
29/10/2020
5,400
41173/20
09/09/2020
Arkadiusz Piotr PAWLINSKI
1982Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
03/02/2021
05/03/2021
2,600
41940/20
29/08/2020
Zsolt NÉMETH
1993Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The six- month obligatory review deadline was missed by the domestic courts by more than 2 months.
18/03/2021
07/12/2020
4,100
44008/20
10/09/2020
Tibor CSIK
1994Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory one-year review of the detention did not take place on time (it took place with a 51-day delay).
18/03/2021
12/01/2021
3,900
44972/20
16/09/2020
László LÉVAI
1982Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention – While extending the applicant ’ s detention, the appellate courts did not always meet the requirement of expeditious proceedings: on 26/03/2020 the Budapest-Capital Regional Court delivered its decision no. 24.Beüf .6571/2020/4. more than 3 months after the first instance decision. The undue delay was acknowledged by the second instance court in the decision. Moreover, the obligatory one-year review of the detention did not take place on time.
24/02/2021
18/12/2020
3,200
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
