Last Updated on September 22, 2021 by LawEuro
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF SZEKERES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 21763/14 and 4 others -see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 March 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Szekeresand Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Georges Ravarani, President,
Marko Bošnjak,
PéterPaczolay, judges,
and LivTigerstedtActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.The applicants in application nos. 5818/15 and 30197/15 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article5 § 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.”
7. 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).
8. In the leading case of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. 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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. In application nos. 5818/15 and 30197/15, the applicants submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Bandur v. Hungary (no. 50130/12, § 84, 5 July 2016), as regards application no. 5818/15, and Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 148-49, ECHR 2015) and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia (no. 43149/10, § 57, 13 February 2018), as regards application no. 30197/15.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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 sums indicated in the appended table.
14. 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. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the applicationsadmissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
4. Holds that application no. 5818/15discloses a breach of Article5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention;
5. Holds that application no. 30197/15 discloses a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the protracted restriction on prison visits;
6. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts 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 amounts 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 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
LivTigerstedt Georges Ravarani
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
Date of birth
|
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Length of detention | House arrest
Start and end date |
Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros)[1] |
| 1. | 21763/14
03/03/2014 |
IstvánSzekeres
21/10/1977 |
BodóKristóf
Budapest |
28/09/2011 to
04/09/2013 |
1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 8 day(s) | 2,600 | ||
| 2. | 42819/14
03/06/2014 |
Viktor MiklósKosztadinovszki
13/05/1979 |
|
04/06/2012 to
05/12/2013 |
1 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 2 day(s) | 2,200 | ||
| 3. | 64339/14
19/09/2014 |
Ilona MolnárnéLőwy
02/11/1961 |
|
27/06/2012 to
19/03/2014 |
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 21 day(s) | 2,500 | ||
| 4. | 5818/15
24/01/2015 |
LászlóKóté
31/03/1971 |
FazekasTamás
Budapest |
13/02/2009 to
16/02/2012
16/01/2014 to 09/12/2014 |
3 year(s) and 4 day(s)
10 month(s) and 24 day(s)
|
17/02/2012 to 06/11/2012 (date of 1st instance conviction);
09/12/2014 to 25/06/2015 |
Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention – Defence was repeatedly not notified of the upcoming reviews of the coercive measures and the courts did not serve the prosecution’s motions on the defence in due time before sessions concerning his potential release. | 5,300 |
| 5. | 30197/15
15/06/2015 |
GyulaPéntek
13/12/1977 |
KadlótErzsébet
Budapest |
26/07/2013 to
01/03/2016 |
2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 5 day(s)
|
Art. 8 (1) – lack of practical opportunities for or restriction on prison visits – During the pre-trial detention, the applicant was barred from receiving visits from his minor children for a period of about 28 months. According to the Court’s well-established case-law in this field, this amounts to a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 148-49, ECHR 2015, and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, § 57, 13 February 2018). | 4,700 |
[1]. Plus anytaxthatmay be chargeabletotheapplicants.
Leave a Reply