Itoe and Others v. Hungary
Struck out of the list
Berörda konventionsartiklar
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 60879/19 Akwo Mbiakop ITOE against Hungary and 9 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 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 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 10 December 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]
60879/19
18/11/2019
Akwo Mbiakop ITOE
1984
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
27/08/2020
09/04/2020
3,400
64253/19
09/12/2019
Béla Ferenc JAKAB
1981
Sándor JAKAB
15/03/1988
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
15/10/2020
03/07/2020
4,600
2416/20
17/12/2019
Lajos SZÉPVÖLGYI
1979
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
09/10/2020
08/06/2020
2,100
6478/20
23/01/2020
Péter Lajos NAGY
1967
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review was carried out with a delay of 1 year and 5 months.
20/10/2020
24/06/2020
2,900
6636/20
22/01/2020
Zoltán MÁGA
1981
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was not supervised within the required statutory time-limit by the courts.
03/08/2020
02/06/2020
2,700
7822/20
28/01/2020
Gyula ALBERTI
1986
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
09/10/2020
18/06/2020
3,100
15477/20
19/03/2020
Azim TARAHL
1988
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - On prolongation, the domestic courts did not adhere to the statutory time-limits for review, i.e. the one-year review was conducted 2,5 months later than prescribed by the applicable law.
17/09/2020
03/07/2020
3,700
17427/20
14/04/2020
András LAKATOS
1991
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention was not subject to review within the statutory deadline. On two occasions the domestic courts missed the deadline by more than 2 months.
12/10/2020
03/08/2020
3,000
20282/20
27/04/2020
Zsolt FARKAS
1967
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts missed the deadline for review of the applicant’s appeals against the pre-trial detention on 3 different occasion by more than 2 weeks, furthermore they missed the deadline for the obligatory six-month review.
27/08/2020
18/09/2020
3,000
20910/20
05/05/2020
Attila BAGÓ
1971
István BÍRÓ
1964
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The review of the applicants’ detention was excessive. The obligatory six-month and one-year review was not carried out in a timely manner, furthermore the courts had missed on multiple occasions the statutory deadline for the review of their appeals.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law - No effective remedy regarding duration of pre-trial detention.
10/09/2020
22/07/2020
4,100
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.