62122/19;5979/20;5984/20;9004/20;11282/20;12199/20;12885/20;12886/20;12887/20;13148/20;13188/20;18993/20;19003/20;19005/20;19217/20;19228/20;19229/20;30117/20;30125/20;30126/20

FIRST SECTION CASE OF GYENGE AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Applications nos. 62122/19 and 19 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 Gyenge 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 applicants were represented by D.A. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 3.  The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.  The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.  The applicants complained of their life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after a lengthy period of time. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.  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 3 of the Convention 7.  Sentenced to life imprisonment, the applicants complained that they could be released on parole only after having served a very long time. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 ““No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8.  The Court reiterates that the automatic review of a sentence after a specified minimum term represents an important safeguard for the prisoner against the risk of detention in violation of Article 3. The relevant principles have been summarised in Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 57592/08, §§ 66-68, 17 January 2017), and Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, § 44, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 9.  In the leading case of Bancsók and László Magyar v. Hungary (no. 2), nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15, 28 October 2021), the Court already found violations of Article 3 in respect of life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after inordinately long periods of time. 10.  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. In the light of its case-law on the subject, it considers that the fact that the applicants can hope to have their progress towards release reviewed only after they have served a very lengthy period of time is sufficient to conclude that these life sentences cannot be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. Such a long waiting period unduly delays the domestic authorities’ review of “whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds” (see Vinter and Others, cited above, § 119). 11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention. 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.  The Court considers that its finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction and accordingly makes no award in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, in particular, Bancsók and László Magyar (no.2), cited above, § 52). 14.  As to costs and expenses, 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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention; Holds that the finding of a violation constitutes in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants; 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 3 of the Convention (life sentence with a possibility of release on parole only after a lengthy period of time) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Name of the court Date of the final judgment Minimum term to be served after sentencing before eligibility for release Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[1]     62122/19 06/11/2019 Ottó Zsolt GYENGE Pécs Court of Appeal, 27/11/2003 28 years 3 months     5979/20 14/01/2020 Antal FARKAS Debrecen Court of Appeal, 14/10/2013 35 years 7 months     5984/20 10/01/2020 Mihály ARNÓCZKI Budapest Court of Appeal, 27/11/2007 26 years 5 months     9004/20 16/01/2020 Ilona BOGDÁN Győr Court of Appeal, 04/04/2006 31 years 2 months     11282/20 19/02/2020 Miklós HORVÁTH Supreme Court of Hungary, 29/01/2002 29 years 6 months     12199/20 25/02/2020 József MOLNÁR Kúria, 24/04/2012 33 years 7 months     12885/20 02/03/2020 Sándor MOLNÁR Kúria,10/04/2018 36 years 10 months     12886/20 02/03/2020 Róbert KÓTAI Debrecen Court of Appeal, 20/04/2010 27 years 7 months     12887/20 02/03/2020 Pál LEGÉNY Budapest Court of Appeal, 23/06/2005 27 years 7 months   13148/20 03/03/2020 Roland STÁHL Supreme Court of Hungary, 04/03/2003 28 years 5 months   13188/20 03/03/2020 Mihály PRESING Supreme Court of Hungary, 04/04/2002 38 years 7 months   18993/20 24/04/2020 Norbert GÖRCSI Pécs Court of Appeal, 26/01/2010 28 years 6 months   19003/20 24/04/2020 Bertalan András GÉCZY Budapest Court of Appeal, 24/03/2009 35 years 7 months   19005/20 24/04/2020 Gábor DOMJÁN Pécs Court of Appeal, 07/06/2011 28 years 5 months   19217/20 24/04/2020 Gábor KALMÁR Budapest Court of Appeal, 21/10/2004 27 years 7 months   19228/20 24/04/2020 Norbert Tamás LÁBADY Pécs Court of Appeal, 26/08/2014 38 years 8 months   19229/20 24/04/2020 Péter István LÖVEY Debrecen Court of Appeal, 08/10/2012 26 years 10 months   30117/20 02/07/2020 Ferenc NAGY Debrecen Court of Appeal, 23/11/2010 48 years 1 month   30125/20 02/07/2020 Jing Zhe ZHAO Supreme Court, 08/10/2002 26 years 11 months   30126/20 02/07/2020 Tamás VITOVSZKI Debrecen Court of Appeal, 30/06/2008 36 years 9 months     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.