CASE OF GÁBOR AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (European Court of Human Rights) Applications nos. 43378/20 and 14 others – see appended list

Last Updated on April 28, 2022 by LawEuro

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. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detentions. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.

---

FIRST SECTION
CASE OF GÁBOR AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 43378/20 and 14 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30 September 2021

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Gábor and Others v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Erik Wennerström, President,
Lorraine Schembri Orland,
Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 9 September 2021,

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. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.

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 detentions. Some applicants 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:

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.”

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 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.

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. Some applicants submitted other complaints which raised issues under Article 5 § 4 of 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 a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in, among many authorities, Bandur v. Hungary, no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016.

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, cited above), 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 applications admissible;

3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;

4. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);

5. 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 30 September 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

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	Period of detention	Length of detention	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.	43378/20 01/09/2020	Andor GÁBOR 1977	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	11/11/2018 to 12/07/2021	2 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 2 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory six-month review was carried out with the delay of two months.	4,900
2.	44541/20 17/09/2020	Ferenc OLÁH 1990	Karsai Dániel András Budapest	19/09/2017 pending	More than 3 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 10 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory 6 months review took place with a delay of 1 month and 20 days.	6,800
3.	45019/20 05/10/2020	Ionut MAZERE 1986	Karsai Dániel András Budapest	16/03/2018 to 22/09/2020	2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 7 day(s)		3,500
4.	45066/20 05/10/2020	István MAKULA 1962	Karsai Dániel András Budapest	12/01/2018 to 13/03/2020	2 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 2 day(s)		3,000
5.	45545/20 21/09/2020	Rafal BOROWY 1983	Karsai Dániel András Budapest	18/01/2019 pending	More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 12 day(s)		3,600
6.	46313/20 05/10/2020	Dániel DEMETER 1991	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	05/09/2018 pending	More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 24 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory one-year review has not been carried out yet, although overdue.	5,100
7.	54032/20 20/11/2020	József PIKÁCS 1970	Karsai Dániel András Budapest	21/09/2018 to 12/05/2020	1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 22 day(s)		2,300
8.	1011/21 08/12/2020	Márk BIHARI 1994	Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest	05/04/2019 to 10/12/2020	1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 6 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory one-year review was carried out with the delay of 1.5 months.	3,200
9.	1041/21 02/12/2020	Zoltán DÉNES 1979	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	19/10/2018 to 20/05/2021	2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory six-month review was carried out with considerable delay.	4,700
10.	1606/21 11/12/2020	László KOVÁCS 1978	Karsai Dániel András Budapest	10/05/2019 pending	More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 7 day(s)		3,100
11.	1612/21 18/12/2020	István Róbert PAOR 1976	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	05/04/2019 pending	More than 2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 24 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The applicant’s appeal for judicial review of detention was decided upon with delay of 1.5 months while the obligatory 6-month review took place with a delay of 8 days.	4,200
12.	3683/21 07/01/2021	Torres Silva WAGNER 1997	Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest	30/11/2018 to 18/11/2020	1 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 20 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory 6-month detention review was carried out belatedly.	3,400
13.	3964/21 10/12/2020	Ferenc CSIMA 1985	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	07/04/2019 to 29/09/2020	1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 23 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory 6-month review of the applicant’s pre-trial detention took place 13 days after the deadline. Furthermore, his appeals on detention were decided upon over more than 1‑1.5 months, on three different occasions.	2,700
14.	5079/21 13/01/2021	Péter PARTALI 1989	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	21/03/2019 pending	More than 2 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 8 day(s)		3,300
15.	12093/21 23/02/2021	Martyniuk SERHII 1984	Kiss Dominika Szilvia Budapest	12/03/2019 pending	More than 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 5 day(s)	Art. 5 (4) – excessive length of judicial review of detention – The obligatory 6-month review was carried out with a delay of 19 days, the one-year review with a delay of 27 days.	4,400

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