Last Updated on November 2, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 13 March 2018
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 80993/13
Tamás POLGÁR and others
against Hungary
lodged on 12 December 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 December 2012 the applicants were apprehended by the police and arrested for 72 hours on charges of breach of peace. During the ensuing interrogation the second applicant asked for a lawyer, but his request was denied. He was allegedly threatened by the police officers that he would be detained for a long time should he refuse to cooperate.
On the same day, the first and the second applicants were both transferred to the Pest Central District Court where, after a brief hearing, they were both placed under house arrest until 21 January 2013 on grounds of recidivism. The prosecutor’s motion had not been delivered to them beforehand. Their appeals were dismissed on 7 January 2013.
On 4 January 2013 the first applicant filed a motion for prosecution against unknown perpetrators for unlawful detention and forced interrogation. His motion was dismissed on 14 February 2013, a decision not subject to appeal or complaint.
On 16 January 2013 the prosecutor submitted to the Pest Central District Court a motion to have the first and second applicants’ house arrest prolonged. Neither the first and/or second applicants, nor their defence counsellors received that motion. On 17 January 2013 the court upheld the request on grounds of recidivism prolonging both applicants’ detention until 21 April, observing that both applicants had criminal records and criminal investigations were pending against the first applicant. The decision did not contain any additional, individualised assessment of the applicants’ situation. The applicants appealed against the decision on 18 January 2013. It appears that no authority has ever responded to this appeal.
On 25 February 2013 the first applicant submitted a request for release to the Prosecutor’s Office but this was dismissed by the Pest Central District Court on 13 March 2013.
On 17 April 2013 the first applicant received the prosecutor’s motion to have his detention prolonged until 21 June 2013. The second applicant or his defence counsellor never received that motion. On 18 April 2013 the Pest Central District Court prolonged the first and second applicants’ house arrest, again, on grounds of recidivism; however, none of the applicants received the prolongation warrant before midnight 21 April, when the previous prolongation had expired. Subsequently, the warrant was served on the first applicant’s defence counsellor on 25 April 2013. On the next day the first and second applicants submitted appeals against the decision of 18 April. On 14 May 2013 the first applicant’s appeal was rejected.
Meanwhile, on 11 and 13 May 2013, respectively, the first and the second applicants submitted new requests for release. On 29 May the first applicant’s request was dismissed, whilst on 27 May 2013 the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the second applicant’s release observing, without any further explanation, that the requirements for the detention were no longer met. The release order was delivered to the Budapest 10th District Police Department on the same day but the second applicant was released only on 21 June 2013.
On 14 June 2013 the Pest Central District Court decided to release the first applicant from the house arrest as well, but the release order was served on him only on 20 June 2013, six days after the date of the order. He remained detained until the order was served.
COMPLAINTS
1. The first and second applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about their allegedly unlawful detention in the period pertaining to the delayed service of the prolongation orders (between 21 and 25 April 2013); and in the periods pertaining to the delayed service of the release orders (between 14 and 20 June 2013 in respect of the first applicant and between 27 May and 21 June 2013 in respect of the second applicant).
2. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the first and the second applicants submit that their house arrest lasted an unreasonably long time and the decisions prolonging their deprivation of liberty were not individualised.
3. They further complain under Article 5 § 4 that the principles of “equality of arms” and of adversarial proceedings were not respected in that they had no access to the prosecutorial motions for the continued detention. They lastly submit that the proceedings did not comply with the “speedily” requirement of Article 5 § 4 in that their appeal of 18 January 2013 was not ever examined by any domestic authority.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the first applicant’s detention in the periods between 21 and 25 April and 14 and 20 June 2013 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Was the second applicant’s detention in the periods between 21 and 25 April and 27 May and 21 June 2013 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was the length of the first and second applicants’ house arrest in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention? Was the requirement of an individualised assessment of the detainees’ personal circumstances potentially warranting their deprivation of liberty respected (cf. Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 152, ECHR 2000-IV)?
4. Were the proceedings by which the first and second applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their house arrest in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of “equality of arms” (cf. Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999‑II) respected, in light of the allegation that on several occasions the defence could not get acquainted in time with the prosecutorial motions for the continued detention?
5. Did the proceedings in the present case, by which the first and second applicants sought to challenge the lawfulness of their detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, considering that their appeal of 18 January 2013 was not examined by any authority?
Appendix
Tamás Polgár is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Budapest.
Robin Attila Dráfi is a Hungarian national who was born in 1984 and lives in Budapest.
Leave a Reply