FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ÁBRAHÁM AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application nos. 50892/19 and 8 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 October 2020
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ábrahám and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 29 September 2020,
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 under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
THE LAWJOINDER 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.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
“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.OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW
11. Some applicants submitted other complaints which also 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 violations 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.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,Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;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);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 22 October 2020, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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]
50892/19
19/09/2019
Géza ÁBRAHÁM
14/11/1972
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
26/04/2017 to
26/04/2018
14/05/2018 to
14/10/2019
1 year(s) and 1 day(s)
1 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 1 day(s)
26/04/2018-13/05/2018
3,400
55646/19
16/10/2019
Hoan NGUYEN QUOC
26/05/1973
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
16/12/2016
pending
More than 3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s)
5,100
62352/19
26/11/2019
Angéla LAKATOS
15/07/1974
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
24/04/2018 to
25/11/2019
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - No judicial review took place following the arrest and the detention order of the applicant.
3,000
63644/19
03/12/2019
Róbert RÁCZ
12/04/1977
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
05/06/2017 to
04/06/2020
3 year(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - During the pre-trial detention the applicant submitted appeals five times against the decisions of the courts to prolong the detention. Repeatedly, the courts failed to decide upon the appeals in good time and exceeded the statutory time-limit more than once.
5,100
64157/19
26/11/2019
Gyula BALOGH
15/04/1982
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
24/04/2018 to
25/11/2019
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 2 day(s)
3,000
2407/20
19/12/2019
János TÓTH
26/12/1961
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
19/09/2017 to
01/07/2019
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 13 day(s)
2,600
8280/20
03/02/2020
Attila TÚRÓ
20/11/1974
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
30/03/2018
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 10 day(s)
3,400
13750/20
27/02/2020
Ábrahám Máté TÓTH
03/02/1997
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
26/09/2018 to
08/06/2020
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 14 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts prolonging the measure did not review the detention in good time, notably, the statutory six-month review was conducted with a 25-day delay.
3,200
17377/20
14/04/2020
Arnold TÓTH
19/04/1999
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
19/08/2018 to
08/06/2020
1 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The courts missed the statutory time-limits for review on multiple occasions.
3,400
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy