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.
NAGY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 49106/20;53110/20;424/21;606/21;1515/21;1611/21;2689/21;5764/21;9595/21;10213/21 • ECHR ID: 001-214060
Document date: November 10, 2021
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
NAGY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 49106/20;53110/20;424/21;606/21;1515/21;1611/21;2689/21;5764/21;9595/21;10213/21 • ECHR ID: 001-214060
Document date: November 10, 2021
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49106/20 Domonkos Dávid NAGY
against Hungary and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 November 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President, Lorraine Schembri Orland, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Attila Teplán, 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 2 December 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Attila Teplán Erik Wennerström 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]
49106/20
22/10/2020
Domonkos Dávid NAGY
1989Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review at the obligatory 6-month deadline was not carried out at all.
18/03/2021
06/01/2021
2,900
53110/20
09/11/2020
János Oszkár FARAGÓ
1980Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory review was carried out with a delay of one month and three days.
16/06/2021
16/04/2021
4,600
424/21
14/12/2020
Tibor SZELLE
1994Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review of the detention was carried out with a delay of 14 days, while the 1-year review has not been carried out at all. At the time of the introduction of the complaint the delay was 96 days.
15/07/2021
04/03/2021
4,200
606/21
23/12/2020
Gábor OROSZ
1981Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
02/06/2021
12/04/2021
2,600
1515/21
22/12/2020
Nikolic KOSTA
1979Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
14/10/2021
14/09/2021
5,200
1611/21
18/12/2020
Roland PÁL
1984Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review of the applicant’s detention was carried out with a delay of 110 days.
01/06/2021
27/04/2021
3,200
2689/21
22/12/2020
Norbert GERÓCS
1981Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal against the decision maintaining the detention after the indictment was decided with a delay of one month.
24/08/2021
28/06/2021
2,900
5764/21
08/01/2021
Miklós CZAKÓ
1986Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 6-month, 1-year and 1.5-year reviews of pre-trial detention took place 77 days, 20 days and 15 days after the expiry of the validity of the applicant’s detention. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon after more than 1-1.5 months, on two occasions.
23/08/2021
30/06/2021
4,400
9595/21
02/02/2021
János MUCSINAI
1988Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts reviewing the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of expeditious proceedings: the obligatory 1-year review of his pre-trial detention took place 41 days after the expiry of the validity of the applicant’s detention. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon over more than 3 months, on two occasions.
06/08/2021
08/07/2021
3,000
10213/21
20/01/2021
Michał DUDEK
1985Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
14/10/2021
14/07/2021
3,300
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
