SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27814/09
Deniel LEGENDI
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 November 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Deniel Legendi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1993 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Sulyok, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
On 18 November 2008 the applicant was arrested on charges of mugging and other offences, committed as a member of a gang. On 20 November 2008 the Buda Surroundings District Court ordered his pre‑trial detention. It made reference to the danger of his absconding and that of collusion. On 16 December 2008 the detention was prolonged for the same reasons. On 9 March 2009 his request for release was rejected. Although the applicant’s lawyer argued that his client had cooperated with the police and was willing to compensate the damage he had caused, the court insisted on the continued detention. The incarceration of the applicant, a minor otherwise living with his parents, was carried out at a special institution for juvenile offenders.
The ensuing prolongation orders contained almost identical reasoning, namely that because of the impending severe punishment, there was a danger of the applicant’s absconding and, moreover, since the investigation was still progress, he could influence some witnesses or tamper with physical evidence yet uncovered. The applicant’s detention continued at least until the beginning of his trial on 11 November 2009.
The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that his continued detention had been unjustified since the reasons referred to by the authorities had gradually lost their relevance during the protracted incarceration and the authorities had ignored his personal situation when prolonging it.
THE LAW
After communication of the applicant’s complaint to the respondent Government, on 29 November 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government note that the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful. In this situation the Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement of the unreasonable length of the pre-trial detention to which the applicant was subjected. Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay Mr Deniel Legendi 3,000 (three thousand) euros. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added taxes paid on lawyers’ fees), will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as „any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
In a letter of 19 December 2011 the applicant accepted the terms of this declaration.
The Court considers that the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government can be considered as an implied friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy