FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 64876/19 József Szeverin FAZEKAS against Hungary and 8 other applications

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 5 November 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 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 (for details see the appended table).

The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations 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 26 November 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek 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]

64876/19

04/12/2019

József Szeverin FAZEKAS

1974Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 31/05/2016 in Germany on the basis of international arrest warrant of 04/02/2016 issued by the Hungarian authorities. The criminal proceedings are still pending before the second instance.

09/10/2020

15/06/2020

5,200

10209/20

03/02/2020

Adil AYOUB

1959Kiss Dániel Bálint

Budapest

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for money-laundering on 25/01/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.

28/08/2020

03/07/2020

5,100

10612/20

17/02/2020

Tibor OLÁH

1991Kiss Dominika Szilvia

Budapest

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for robbery on 16/06/2016. No first instance decision has been rendered yet.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - It appears that on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 22/05/2019 the Pest Central District Court delivered its decision no. 24.B.VIII.12.310/2017/62-I 49 days after the deadline).

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.

25/08/2020

23/07/2020

5,100

14141/20

10/03/2020

János KEDÉLYVÁRI

1980Kiss Dominika Szilvia

Budapest

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 09/03/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 08/11/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 2.Bel.10.002/2020/4 76 days after the deadline).

01/09/2020

20/07/2020

5,600

15113/20

16/03/2020

Sándor PUSZTAI

1990Kiss Dominika Szilvia

Budapest

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongation of detention the domestic courts did not always meet the statutory deadline, i.e. the 1 year review was late by 48 days.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings

Art. 6 (1) – excessive length of criminal proceedings - the investigation was lodged on 27/07/2016 and no first instance decision has been rendered yet.

29/08/2020

14/07/2020

5,900

15119/20

16/03/2020

Attila KUTKA

1991Kiss Dominika Szilvia

Budapest

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested on 11/01/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 06/11/2018 the Balassagyarmat High Court delivered its decision no. 19.B.61/2018/112 18 days after the deadline, and on 06/06/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 1.Bel.10.405/2019/2).

25/08/2020

20/07/2020

5,900

15123/20

16/03/2020

Yousef AHMED

1973Kiss Dominika Szilvia

Budapest

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was arrested for the first time on 23/03/2017. Since then the criminal proceedings are still ongoing before the first instance.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of criminal proceedings.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 11/14/2019 the Budapest High Court delivered its decision no. 29.Bel.11.829/2019/2 48 days after the deadline).

31/08/2020

11/09/2020

5,400

17451/20

20/03/2020

Attila KUTKA

1971Kiss Dominika Szilvia

Budapest

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on 24/01/2017, since then the criminal proceedings against him are still pending before the first instance.

Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - on prolongations of detention, the domestic courts did not always meet the deadlines (i.e. on 06/06/2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal delivered its decision no. 1.Bel.10.405/2019/2 48 days after the deadline).

25/08/2020

15/07/2020

5,900

18987/20

23/04/2020

Ernő PUPOS

1987Kiss 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 not done within the time-limits. Furthermore the reviews of his appeals were not carried out within the statutory time-limit. The courts missed the deadline by several weeks on each occasion.

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - The case is still pending before the first instance court and the applicant was arrested on 11/01/2017.

28/08/2020

28/07/2020

5,900

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.