FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KEREKES AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 29343/20 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15 April 2021
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kerekes and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Péter Paczolay,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 25 March 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 under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. They also raised 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
“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. The 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 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 v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014), 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 Article 5 § 4 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 15 April 2021, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya MaradudinaAlena Poláčková
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
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]
29343/20
24/06/2020
Krisztián KEREKES
1987
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
19/06/2018 to 17/04/2019
14/05/2019 to 13/02/2020
9 month(s) and 30 day(s)
9 month(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s detention review was carried out belatedly on several occasions.
2,900
33936/20
30/07/2020
Kevin Joel RENÉ
1981
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
21/02/2018
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 26 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The domestic courts repeatedly missed the statutory deadlines for review. The 6-month deadline was missed by 15 days, the 1‑year review by 49 days.
5,200
36936/20
13/08/2020
István SIMON
1976
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
07/09/2018 to 08/05/2019
13/12/2019 to 03/11/2020
8 month(s) and 2 day(s)
10 month(s) and 22 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The 6-month obligatory review was carried out by the courts with a 2.5-month delay; the 1‑year review with a delay of one month.
2,900
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy