FOURTH SECTION
\nCASE OF SZEKERES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
\n(Application no. 21763\/14 and 4 others -see appended list)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n7 March 2019<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Szekeresand Others v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n Georges Ravarani, President, Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2019,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Notice of the applications was given to the Hungarian Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d).<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.The applicants in application nos.\u00a05818\/15 and 30197\/15 also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained principally that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03<\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cEveryone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(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.\u201d<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kud\u0142a v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0In the leading case of G\u00e1l 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.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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\u2019 pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n III.\u00a0\u00a0OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0In application nos.\u00a05818\/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\u00a035 \u00a7\u00a03\u00a0(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.\u00a0Hungary (no.\u00a050130\/12, \u00a7 84, 5 July 2016), as regards application no.\u00a05818\/15, and Khoroshenko v. Russia ([GC], no. 41418\/04, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0148-49, ECHR 2015) and Andrey Smirnov v. Russia (no. 43149\/10<\/a>, \u00a7\u00a057, 13\u00a0February 2018), as regards application no.\u00a030197\/15.<\/p>\n IV.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, G\u00e1l v. Hungary, no. 62631\/11, 11 March 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Decides to join the applications;<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Declares the applicationsadmissible;<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that application no. 5818\/15discloses a breach of Article5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a04 of the Convention concerning the deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention;<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0Holds that application no. 30197\/15 discloses a breach of Article 8 of the Convention concerning the protracted restriction on prison visits;<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Holds<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0that 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;<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0that 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.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 March 2019, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n LivTigerstedt\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Georges Ravarani <\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/p>\n List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/p>\n (excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak,
\nP\u00e9terPaczolay, judges,
\nand LivTigerstedtActingDeputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n