Last Updated on February 10, 2021 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF PIROS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 37149/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
21 January 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Piros v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and LivTigerstedt,ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 December 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 August 2018.
2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
5. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 5 § 3
“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
6. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
7. In the leading cases of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014, and Lakatos v. Hungary, no. 21786/15, 26 June 2018, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.
9. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5§ 3 of the Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
10. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.
12. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that it discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 21 January 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy Registrar President
____________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| Application no. Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name Year of birth |
Period of detention | Length of detention | House arrest Start and end date |
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1] |
| 37149/18 01/08/2018 |
László PIROS 1975 |
14/10/2016 to 22/03/2018 06/04/2018 to 29/10/2018 |
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 9 day(s) 6 month(s) and 24 day(s) |
22/03/2018 – 05/04/2018 | 2,700 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply