8318/23;14140/23;14485/23

WyrokETPCz2024-02-08ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0208JUD000831823

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne
Czy nadmierna długość tymczasowego aresztowania naruszyła prawo skarżących do rozpoznania sprawy w rozsądnym terminie lub zwolnienia w oczekiwaniu na proces, zgodnie z art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji?
Ratio decidendi
Trybunał stwierdził naruszenie art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji, uznając, że długość tymczasowego aresztowania skarżących była nadmierna. Opierał się na swojej ugruntowanej linii orzeczniczej dotyczącej tego przepisu, w tym na wcześniejszych wyrokach przeciwko Węgrom. Trybunał nie znalazł żadnych faktów ani argumentów, które mogłyby skłonić go do odmiennego wniosku w tej sprawie, co potwierdza spójność jego podejścia do problemu przewlekłości aresztu tymczasowego.
Stan faktyczny
Skarżący, József Zsolt Zombori, Attila Miklós Rostás oraz pięciu członków rodziny Bozsányi (István, Gáza, György János, Pál, Tamás), byli przetrzymywani w areszcie tymczasowym na Węgrzech. Okresy ich aresztowania wahały się od około 2 lat i 10 miesięcy do ponad 3 lat. Skarżący zarzucili, że długość ich aresztu tymczasowego była nadmierna, naruszając ich prawa wynikające z Konwencji.
Rozstrzygnięcie
Trybunał jednomyślnie: postanowił połączyć skargi; uznał skargi za dopuszczalne; stwierdził naruszenie art. 5 ust. 3 Konwencji w związku z nadmierną długością tymczasowego aresztowania; oraz zasądził od państwa pozwanego na rzecz skarżących kwoty wskazane w załączonej tabeli tytułem słusznego zadośćuczynienia, wraz z odsetkami za zwłokę.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

FIRST SECTION CASE OF ZOMBORI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Applications nos. 8318/23 and 2 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 8 February 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zombori 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 18 January 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. 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 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 of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in respect of the excessive 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 11.  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.” 12.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Gál, cited above), 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 (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 8 February 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 Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros)[1]     8318/23 09/02/2023 József Zsolt ZOMBORI   Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 24/04/2020 to 08/03/2023 2 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 13 day(s)   4,000     14140/23 23/03/2023 Attila Miklós ROSTÁS   Karsai Dániel András Budapest 18/09/2019 to 25/11/2022 3 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 8 day(s)   4,300     14485/23 21/03/2023 (5 applicants) István BOZSÁNYI   Gáza BOZSÁNYI   György János BOZSÁNYI   Pál BOZSÁNYI   Tamás BOZSÁNYI   Karsai Dániel András Budapest 30/05/2020 to 01/06/2023 3 year(s) and 3 day(s)   4,000   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

© Rada Europy / Europejski Trybunał Praw Człowieka, źródło: HUDOC (hudoc.echr.coe.int), pozyskano 17.07.2026. · Źródło