European Court of Human Rights

 

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF SÜVEGES v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 20714/19 )

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

6 February 2020

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Süveges v. Hungary ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , President,
Georges Ravarani ,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt , Acting Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 16 January 2020 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 .     The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on 10 April 2019.

2 .     The applicant was represented by Mr A.K. Kádár, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

3 .     The Hungarian Government ("the Government") were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4 .     The applicant ' s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5 .     The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention .

THE LAW

1. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION

6 .     The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long . He relied on Article 5   §   3 of the Convention, which read s 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 case of Gál v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

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 applicant ' s pre-trial detention was excessive.

10 .     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention.

2. 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 v. Hungary, no. 62631/11, 11 March 2014), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table.

13 .     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that it discloses a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention ;
3. Holds

(a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount 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 amount 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 6 February 2020 , pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.

Liv Tigerstedt Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

              Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention

( excessive length of pre-trial detention )

 

 

[1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant .