SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 38857/23
Krisztián Rajmund FARKAS against Hungary
and 3 other applications

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 February 2025 as a Committee composed of:

 Gediminas Sagatys, President,
 Stéphane Pisani,
 Juha Lavapuro, 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 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 abovementioned 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 6 March 2025.

 

 Attila Teplán Gediminas Sagatys
 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]

  1.    

38857/23

17/10/2023

Krisztián Rajmund FARKAS

1981

 

Frank Evelyn

Budapest

 

27/11/2024

20/09/2024

4,300

  1.    

2007/24

18/12/2023

Artúr JÓNI

1974

 

Kiss Dániel Bálint

Budapest

Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - Criminal proceedings have been pending against the applicant charged with attempted homicide since 15/11/2020 at one level of jurisdiction.

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

24/09/2024

18/04/2024

5,900

  1.    

6514/24

26/02/2024

Lajos Zoltán BANKÓ

1974

 

Frank Evelyn

Budapest

 

15/10/2024

17/07/2024

4,000

  1.    

7318/24

27/02/2024

Imre BALOG

1971

 

Kiss Dániel Bálint

Budapest

Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The Pécs High Court failed to carry out the ex officio judicial review of the grounds of the applicant’s continued arrest 6 months after his trial’s opening.

25/07/2024

03/07/2024

3,900

 


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