{"id":21658,"date":"2023-11-16T12:41:18","date_gmt":"2023-11-16T12:41:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21658"},"modified":"2023-11-16T12:41:18","modified_gmt":"2023-11-16T12:41:18","slug":"case-of-nagy-v-hungary-the-applicant-complained-of-the-excessive-length-of-his-pre-trial-detention","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=21658","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY – The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention"},"content":{"rendered":"

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\u2019s pre-trial detention was excessive. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n

Full text of the document.<\/em><\/p>\n

European Court of Human Rights
\nFIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF NAGY v. HUNGARY<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 14047\/23)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n16 November 2023<\/p>\n

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n

In the case of Nagy v. Hungary,<\/strong><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
\nL\u0259tif H\u00fcseynov,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,
\nand Attila Tepl\u00e1n, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n

Having deliberated in private on 12 October 2023,<\/p>\n

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n

PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. The case originated in an application 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 21 March 2023.<\/p>\n

2. The applicant was represented by Mr D. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Budapest.<\/p>\n

3. The Hungarian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n

THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n

5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n

THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n

I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n

Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03<\/p>\n

\u201c3. Everyone 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. 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\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. In the leading cases of G\u00e1l 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.<\/p>\n

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 applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n

10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n

II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

11. Article 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

12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, G\u00e1l, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n

1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n

2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n

3. Holds<\/p>\n

(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;<\/p>\n

(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.<\/p>\n

Done in English, and notified in writing on 16 November 2023, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n

Attila Tepl\u00e1n \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0 Krzysztof Wojtyczek
\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n

____________<\/p>\n

APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention
\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n

Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n

Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n

Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\nPeriod of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nLength of detention<\/strong><\/td>\nAmount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n

(in euros)[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n

14047\/23<\/p>\n

21\/03\/2023<\/td>\n

Zsolt NAGY<\/strong><\/p>\n

1993<\/td>\n

Kiss D\u00e1niel B\u00e1lint<\/p>\n

Budapest<\/td>\n

10\/12\/2019 to<\/p>\n

23\/11\/2022<\/td>\n

2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 14 day(s)<\/td>\n3,900<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n