FIRST SECTION
CASE OF OROSZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 76862/17 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
14 April 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Orosz and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Raffaele Sabato,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 24 March,
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 of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. 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 CONVENTION6. 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-LAW11. Some applicants submitted further complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention which also raised issues, 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.
12. In applications nos. 13696/21 and 21985/21, the applicants moreover submitted length complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. 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 likewise admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in among many authorities, Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION13. 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.”
14. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. 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 14 April 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
Acting Deputy Registrar President
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
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]
76862/17
24/10/2017
Lajos István OROSZ
1971
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
14/05/2015 to
21/12/2015
7 month(s) and 8 day(s)
21/12/2015-16/05/2017
1,300
13696/21
01/03/2021
Tamás MAROZSÁN
1976
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
02/05/2018 to
22/04/2021
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 21 day(s)
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.
5,100
16845/21
16/03/2021
Zsolt PAP
1975
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
26/06/2019
pending
More than
2 year(s) and
8 month(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The 6-month obligatory review was carried out with a delay of 3 months. The 1-year review was delayed 54 days, the related appeal took 2 months. The 1.5-year review was delayed 2 months.
4,700
21985/21
12/04/2021
Zsigmond FEHÉR
1974
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
01/03/2018 to
30/08/2018
03/12/2018 to
13/04/2019
29/08/2019 to
17/07/2020
12/11/2020 to
22/11/2020
13/12/2020 to
24/11/2021
5 month(s) and 30 day(s)
4 month(s) and 11 day(s)
10 month(s) and 19 day(s)
11 day(s)
11 month(s) and 12 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal against the decision maintaining the detention after the indictment was delayed 1.5 months. The appeal against the decision ordering the detention after the house arrest was delayed 2.5 months.
Art. 6 (1) - excessive length of criminal proceedings - Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on 01/03/2018 on suspicion of different violent felonies. No first instance decision has been adopted in his case.
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings.
4,900
24644/21
03/05/2021
Henriett UJJ
1992
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
08/08/2019 to
31/03/2021
1 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 24 day(s)
2,300
27943/21
26/05/2021
Attila TÓTH
1984
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
07/04/2019 to
22/05/2019
24/10/2019 to
22/04/2021
1 month(s) and 16 day(s)
1 year(s) and
5 month(s) and 30 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review was carried out with a delay of 15 days. The obligatory 1-year review was carried out with a delay of 44 days.
3,000
32329/21
16/06/2021
Norbert REITER-KOVÁCS
1980
Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
12/03/2019 to
11/05/2020
13/07/2020
pending
1 year(s) and
2 month(s)
More than 1 year(s) and
7 month(s) and 2 day(s)
11/05/2020-13/07/2020
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - One appeal of detention was examined in more than two months.
5,100
32909/21
15/06/2021
János KIS
1989
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
11/04/2019 to
01/09/2021
2 year(s) and
4 month(s) and 22 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month and 1-year reviews of the applicant’s detention took place with considerable delays (29 and 43 days). One of his appeals was also handled in more than 2,5 months.
4,200
37438/21
19/07/2021
Milan NECKAR
1992
Dana NECKAROVA
1980
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
16/09/2019 to
13/07/2021
1 year(s) and
9 month(s) and 28 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6-month review was carried out with a delay of 84 days. Two appeals lasted over 3 months.
3,400
40793/21
02/08/2021
András DOLFI
1980
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
28/02/2019 to
31/08/2021
2 year(s) and
6 month(s) and 4 day(s)
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.