57470/22;5946/23;11345/23;11910/23;20682/23;23461/23;24128/23

FIRST SECTION CASE OF LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Applications nos. 57470/22 and 6 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 25 April 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Lakatos and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:  Gilberto Felici, President,  Péter Paczolay,  Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 4 April 2024, 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 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 violations in respect of the undue length of pre-trial detention. 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 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. 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. 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 25 April 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.  Attila Teplán Gilberto Felici  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 Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     57470/22 08/12/2022 Gusztáv LAKATOS Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 31/07/2020 to 04/08/2023 3 year(s) and 5 day(s)     4,000     5946/23 18/01/2023 Tuan Anh DANG Fahidi Gergely Budapest 23/01/2020 to 03/07/2023 3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 11 day(s)     4,700     11345/23 20/02/2023 Róbert HORVÁTH Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 06/08/2020 to 09/08/2023 3 year(s) and 4 day(s)     4,000     11910/23 16/02/2023 Balázs BARANYI Karsai Dániel András Budapest 25/02/2020 to 18/10/2022 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 24 day(s)     3,600     20682/23 16/05/2023 Mezer DAWAS Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 03/11/2020 to 23/08/2023 2 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 21 day(s)   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Several appeals against the court decisions upholding the applicant’s pre-trial detention were significantly delayed. 5,100     23461/23 16/05/2023 Andrásné BUDAI Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 06/03/2019 to 08/03/2023 4 year(s) and 3 day(s)     5,300     24128/23 19/05/2023 Tibor BARTHA Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 03/11/2020 to 04/09/2021   13/09/2021 pending 10 month(s) and 2 day(s)     More than 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 1 day(s) Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention Significant delays occurred in the judicial reviews of the applicant’s pre-trial detention. 5,900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.