SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 25157/04
by János HEGYESI
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 October 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr János Hegyesi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Magyar, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The respondent Government are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and his accomplices. They were charged with lethal bodily assault. After the Budapest Public Prosecutor’s Office had preferred a bill of indictment in the case, at 8.45 a.m. on 6 February 2004 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention until the delivery of the first-instance decision on the merits. The applicant’s lawyer appealed.
At 2 p.m. on the same day the court held another hearing (a ‘session on bail’ (óvadéki ülés)) in the presence of inter alia the applicant, his lawyer and the public prosecutor, concerning the applicant’s request for release on bail with a surety of 2 million Hungarian forints. In its decision rejecting the request, the Regional Court stated that it had held a ‘session on bail’ and found that the applicant’s appearance for trial could only be secured if his detention was maintained. The applicant and his lawyer immediately appealed.
In the subsequent reasoning of his appeal to the Budapest Court of Appeal, the applicant’s lawyer argued that the applicant’s detention was unjustified and that the request for release on bail had been dismissed in unlawful proceedings. He alleged that the Regional Court had not actually held a session on bail as required by section 147(3) of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, or if it had done so, it had failed to hear the prosecutor, the defendant, the lawyer or the person proposing the bail.
On 9 March 2004 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, both in respect of the prolongation of the detention and the dismissal of the request for release on bail.Relevant domestic law
Section 147(3) of Act XIX of 1998 on the New Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
“... The court shall decide on the proposed bail and its acceptance during a session at which it shall hear the public prosecutor, the defendant, the defence attorney and the person who has proposed to put up the bail surety. If, despite notification, the defence attorney fails to appear for the session, the court may hold the session in his absence.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention was not prolonged in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, since his request for release on bail was dismissed in a manner infringing the domestic law. He submits that, in breach of section 147(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court did not hold a ‘session on bail’ or hear him or his lawyer; or if it held a session, neither he nor his lawyer was notified thereof.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that his detention on remand was prolonged by an unlawful procedure in that no ‘session on bail’ took place before the Regional Court. He relies on Article 5 § 1 of the Convention which provides as relevant:
“Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...”
The Government submit the minutes of the ‘session on bail’ held at 2 p.m. on 6 February 2004 which the applicant, his lawyer and the public prosecutor attended. The applicant does not submit any observations in reply.
In these circumstances the Court is satisfied that a ‘session on bail’ did indeed take place and that there is no indication that the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged in unlawful proceedings. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. Consequently, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy