AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 27891/95

                      by György SZILÁGYI

                      against Hungary

     The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 10 April 1997, the following members being present:

           Mrs.  J. LIDDY, President

           MM.   M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                 E. BUSUTTIL

                 A. WEITZEL

                 C.L. ROZAKIS

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 B. MARXER

                 B. CONFORTI

                 I. BÉKÉS

                 G. RESS

                 A. PERENIC

                 C. BÎRSAN

                 K. HERNDL

                 M. VILA AMIGÓ

           Mrs.  M. HION

           Mr.   R. NICOLINI

           Mrs.  M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

     Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

     Having regard to the application introduced on 12 December 1994

by György SZILÁGYI against Hungary and registered on 19 July 1995 under

file No. 27891/95;

     Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

     Having deliberated;

     Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

     The applicant, born in 1952, is a Hungarian national.  He is

currently detained on remand in a prison in Debrecen, Hungary. He is

a businessman. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. P. Antal,

a lawyer practising in Debrecen.

     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

     On 15 May 1994 the Hajdú-Bihar County Police Department (Hajdú-

Bihar Megyei Rendorfokapitányság Bunügyi Igazgatóság Vizsgálati

Osztálya) arrested the applicant on the strong suspicion (alapos gyanú)

of his having kidnapped three Austrian citizens, within the meaning of

Section 175/A of the Hungarian Criminal Code (a Bünteto Törvénykönyvrol

szóló 1978. évi IV. törvény). Upon his arrest, the Police Department

relied on S. 91 (1b) of the Hungarian Code of Criminal Procedure (a

bünteto eljárásról szóló 1973. évi I. törvény), which provides that a

defendant can be arrested, if the circumstances of the case warrant his

detention on remand.

     Still on 15 May 1994 applicant was heard by the police as a

suspect of kidnapping (emberrablás).

     On 17 May 1994 the Hajdú-Bihar County Public Prosecutor's Office

(Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Foügyészség) dismissed the applicant's complaint

against his arrest.

     Also on 17 May 1994 the Debrecen District Court (Debreceni Városi

Bíróság) held a hearing and, upon the proposal of the Hajdú-Bihar

County Public Prosecutor's Office, ordered the applicant's detention

on remand. The District Court, having regard to the then results of the

police investigation and to the applicant's statements made at the

hearing, found that there was a strong suspicion that he had been

involved in the kidnapping of three Austrian citizens. The District

Court held that further investigation was necessary in the case in

order to produce more evidence. Moreover, the District Court held that,

in the light of the seriousness of the charges, there was a well-

founded concern that the applicant would hide from the authorities,

abscond, or would commit a further crime, if left at large. The

District Court also took note of the fact that, at the same time,

further sets of criminal proceedings were conducted against him. The

District Court referred to S. 92 (1a) and (1c) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure as the legal basis for the decision.

     According to S. 92 of the Criminal Procedure, a defendant can be

detained on remand, if there is a danger of his absconding, collusion

or repetition of crime, if left at large.

     On 13 June 1994 the District Court prolonged the detention on

remand until 17 August 1994. On 5 July 1994, upon the applicant's

appeal, the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court (Hajdú-Bihar Megyei

Bíróság) upheld this decision.

     On 11 August 1994 a single judge at the Hajdú-Bihar Regional

Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand until

17 November 1994. On 23 August 1994, upon the applicant's appeal, the

Regional Court, sitting as a panel, upheld this decision.

     On 7 October 1994 the Hajdú-Bihar County Public Prosecutor's

Office dismissed the applicant's complaint that the police authorities

failed to further the investigations. The Prosecutor's Office recalled

that in June and July 1994 several actions of investigation had been

taken by the police, including a hearing of the applicant on 18 July,

hearings of the victims, inspection of the premises and contacting the

INTERPOL.

     On 15 November 1994 a single judge at the Hajdú-Bihar County

Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand until

17 April 1995. The Regional Court found that, in addition to the

reasons earlier considered by the courts, there was also a danger of

the applicant's collusion, since he had smuggled a mobile phone into

his prison ward. The Regional Court also held that, since the

investigation warranted contacts with international criminal

information centres, the then length of the detention on remand was not

unreasonable. The Regional Court relied on SS. 92 (1a), (1b) and (1c)

and 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 30 November 1994, upon the

applicant's appeal, the Regional Court, sitting as a panel, upheld this

decision.

     On 21 October 1994 and on 20 February 1995 the Debrecen District

Court, without taking a formal decision, dismissed the applicant's

repeated requests for release on the ground that they contained no new

relevant information. The District Court relied on S. 95 (4) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that a repeated request for

release, containing no new relevant information, does not warrant a

formal court decision.

     On 2 March 1995 the applicant's lawyer lodged a complaint with

the Hajdú-Bihar County Police Department about the alleged inefficiency

and the length of the investigation.

     On 16 March 1995 the District Court dismissed the applicant's

repeated request for release. On 30 March 1995 the Regional Court

dismissed his appeal.

     On 23 March 1995 the police informed the applicant that, in the

context of the same crime, he was suspected of having committed severe

theft (kifosztás) and a violation of one's personal liberty (személyi

szabadság megsértése). On 31 March 1995 the Hajdú-Bihar County Public

Prosecutor's Office dismissed his complaint.

     On 13 April 1995 the Supreme Court (Legfelsobb Bíróság) prolonged

the applicant's detention on remand until 17 August 1995.

     On 3 May 1995 the applicant's lawyer unsuccessfully requested the

applicant's release from the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court.

     On 5 May 1995 the Military Panel of the Hajdú-Bihar County

Regional Court (Hajdú-Bihar Megyei Bíróság Katonai Tanácsa), in a

separate set of proceedings, finally convicted the applicant of

corruption and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment. Between

1 June and 31 October 1995 the applicant served this sentence.

     Meanwhile the applicant's lawyer had lodged a complaint with the

Investigation Supervisory Department of the Attorney General's Office

(Legfobb Ügyészség Nyomozás Felügyeleti Foosztálya), which, on

30 May 1995, forwarded the complaint to the Hajdú-Bihar County Public

Prosecutor's Office.

     On 1 August 1995 the Hajdú-Bihar County Public Prosecutor's

Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant. The

applicant, along with five further co-accused, was charged with having

been an accomplice to two counts of kidnapping (emberrablás) and to

violating somebody's personal liberty (személyi szabadság megsértése);

moreover with having been an instigator to one count of severe bodily

assault and an accomplice to two counts of severe bodily assault

(súlyos testi sértés) as well as an instigator to two counts of abuse

of official documents (közokirattal visszaélés); furthermore, with

having committed severe theft (kifosztás). The Public Prosecutor's

Office recalled that measures had been taken to obtain information

about two further sets of criminal proceedings conducted against the

applicant in Austria. The Public Prosecutor's Office proposed that the

trial court hear two experts and twenty-two witnesses in the case. The

Public Prosecutor's Office also proposed that the trial court resume

the applicant's detention on remand, as from the completion of his

prison sentence on 31 October 1995, pursuant to Section 95 (2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 95 (2) provides that the detention

on remand, ordered or maintained by the first instance trial court

subsequent to the filing of the bill of indictment, lasts until the

announcement of the first instance judgment on the merits. As from

1 November 1995, the applicant's detention on remand was resumed

accordingly.

     Between 27 November 1995 and 24 June 1996 the Hajdú-Bihar County

Regional Court held thirty-two trial sessions.

     On 2 July 1996 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of

having been an accomplice to three counts of kidnapping, an accomplice

to two counts of and an instigator to one count of severe bodily

assault, moreover of having committed two counts of abuse of official

documents. The Regional Court sentenced the applicant to six years'

imprisonment and ordered that his pre-trial detention between

15 May 1994 and 31 May 1995, moreover, between 1 November 1995 and

2 July 1996 be credited against the duration of this sentence. The

Regional Court acquitted the applicant of one count of severe theft

(kifosztás) and of two counts of instigation to severe theft.

     In his submissions of 26 August 1996 the applicant's lawyer

states that the applicant's appeal against the first instance decision

is pending before the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

1.   The applicant complains under Article 5 para. 4 and Article 13

of the Convention that his detention on remand was arbitrary and lasted

unreasonably long.

2.   The applicant further complains under Article 6 paras. 1 and 2

that the manner of taking evidence during the investigation was unfair

in general in that the authorities ignored any evidence in his defence.

3.   The applicant submits under Article 8 that his correspondence,

while detained on remand, was delayed by the authorities and that his

concubine, a Romanian citizen, was denied a residence permit in

Hungary, allegedly with regard to the criminal proceedings conducted

against him.

THE LAW

1.   The applicant complains that his detention on remand was

arbitrary.

     The Commission considers that this complaint falls to be examined

under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, which, in so far

as relevant, provides as follows:

     "1.   Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

     No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following

     cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

     ...

           c.    the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected

     for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal

     authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence

     or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his

     committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;"

     The Commission has examined whether the applicant's detention on

remand was "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" and

"lawful" within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1). In this

respect the Commission recalls that the Convention here essentially

refers back to national law and states the obligation to conform to the

substantive and procedural rules thereof; but it requires in addition

that any deprivation of liberty should be consistent with the purpose

of Article 5 (Art. 5), namely, to protect individuals from

arbitrariness. Moreover, it is in the first place for the national

authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law.

However, since under Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) failure to comply

with domestic law entails a breach of the Convention, it follows that

the Convention organs can and should exercise a certain power to review

whether this law has been complied with (Eur. Court HR, Scott v. Spain

judgment of 18 December 1996, to be published in Reports of Judgments

and Decisions 1996, paras. 56-57).

     The Commission notes that on 17 May 1994 the Debrecen District

Court held a hearing and, upon the proposal of the Hajdú-Bihar County

Public Prosecutor's Office, ordered the applicant's detention on

remand. The District Court, having regard to the then results of the

police investigation and to the applicant's statements made at the

hearing, found that there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had

been involved in the kidnapping of three Austrian citizens. The

District Court held that further investigation was necessary in the

case in order to produce more evidence. Moreover, the District Court

held that, in the light of the seriousness of the charges, there was

a well-founded concern that the applicant would hide from the

authorities, abscond, or would commit a further crime, if left at

large. The District Court also took note of the fact that, at the same

time, further sets of criminal proceedings were conducted against the

applicant. The District Court referred to S. 92 (1a) and (1c) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure as the legal basis for the decision.

     Moreover, the domestic courts, when extending the applicant's

detention on remand and dismissing his requests for release, referred

in essence to the original detention order and stated that the reasons

set out in it were still persistent. On 15 November 1994 the Hajdú-

Bihar County Regional Court, in its prolongation order, found that, in

addition to the reasons earlier considered by the courts, there was

also a danger of the applicant's collusion, since he had previously

smuggled a mobile phone into his prison ward.

     Furthermore, the Commission notes that there is nothing to show

that the domestic court decisions ordering and prolonging the

applicant's detention were not in compliance with the relevant

procedural provisions of Hungarian law.

     In these circumstances, the Commission finds that the applicant's

submissions do not disclose any appearance that his detention on remand

was contrary to Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of

the Convention.

2.   The applicant also complains that his detention remand lasted

unreasonably long.

     The Commission considers that this complaint falls to be examined

under Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention, which reads as

follows:

     "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."

     The Commission recalls that whether a period of pre-trial

detention can be considered "reasonable" must be assessed in each case

according to its special features (cf., Eur. Court HR, Wemhoff v.

Germany judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7, p. 24, para. 10).

Continued detention can be justified in a given case only if there are

specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which,

notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of

respect for individual liberty. It falls in the first place to the

national judicial authorities to examine all the circumstances arguing

for or against the existence of such a requirement and to set them out

in their decisions on the applications for release. It is essentially

on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the facts

stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Convention organs are

called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of

Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention (Eur. Court HR, Scott

v. Spain judgment of 18 December 1996, to be published in Reports of

Judgments and Decisions 1996, para. 74).

     The persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person

arrested has committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the

lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of

time it no longer suffices: the Convention organs must then establish

whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued

to justify the deprivation of liberty.  Where such grounds were

"relevant" and "sufficient", the Convention organs must also ascertain

whether the competent national authorities displayed "special

diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings. The complexity and

special characteristics of the investigation are factors to be

considered in this respect (cf., Eur. Court HR, Toth v. Austria

judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224, p. 18, para. 67; Van

der Tang v. Spain judgment of 13 July 1995, Series A no. 321, pp. 17-

18, para. 55).

     The Commission notes that the applicant was detained on remand

from 17 May 1994 until 31 May 1995. Between 1 June 1995 and 31 October

1995 he served a prison sentence. He was again detained on remand from

1 November 1995 until 2 July 1996, when the Regional Court passed its

sentence.  Thus his detention on remand lasted altogether twenty and

a half months.

     As to the complexity of the case, the Commission notes that the

applicant - in the relevant period being defendant in several

simultaneous sets of criminal proceedings in Hungary and in Austria -

was tried, along with five further co-accused, for having committed

several offences in the context of kidnapping three Austrian citizens.

In particular, on 17 May 1994 the Debrecen District Court found that

there was a strong suspicion that the applicant had kidnapped the

Austrian citizens in question. Moreover, on 23 March 1995 the police

suspected him of having committed severe theft and a violation of one's

personal liberty. Furthermore, in the bill of indictment, he was

charged with having been an accomplice to two counts of kidnapping and

to violating somebody's personal liberty, an instigator to one count

of severe bodily assault and an accomplice to two counts of severe

bodily assault, an instigator to two counts of abuse of official

documents and with having committed severe theft. The establishment of

the facts warranted, inter alia, summoning the victims from abroad,

hearing two experts and numerous witnesses, moreover, contacts with

international criminal information centres including the INTERPOL.

     As to the conduct of the authorities, the Commission notes

that on 7 October 1994 the Hajdú-Bihar County Public Prosecutor's

Office dismissed the applicant's complaint that the police authorities

had failed to further the investigations. The Prosecutor's Office

recalled that in June and July 1994 several actions of investigation

had been taken by the police, including a hearing of the applicant on

18 July, hearings of the victims, inspection of the premises and

contacting the INTERPOL. Moreover, on 15 November 1994 the Hajdú-Bihar

County Regional Court, while prolonging the applicant's detention on

remand, held that, since the investigation warranted contacts with

international criminal information centres, the then length of the

detention on remand was not unreasonable. Furthermore, in the bill of

indictment of 1 August 1995 the Hajdú-Bihar County Public Prosecutor's

Office recalled that measures had been taken to obtain information

about two further sets of criminal proceedings conducted against the

applicant in Austria.

     The Commission also notes that between 27 November 1995 and

24 June 1996 the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court held thirty-two

trial sessions in the case and, on 2 July 1996, convicted the applicant

of having been an accomplice to three counts of kidnapping, an

accomplice to two counts of and an instigator to one count of severe

bodily assault, moreover of having committed two counts of abuse of

official documents. The Regional Court sentenced the applicant to six

years' imprisonment.

     In these circumstances the Commission, having regard to the

serious nature of the charges against the applicant, the complexity and

the international crime implications of the case, moreover, to the

extensive series of court hearings and the applicant's eventual

conviction, considers that the total length of the applicant's

detention remand can be regarded as justified for the purposes of

Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

     It follows that this part of the application is likewise

manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

3.   The applicant further complains under Article 6 paras. 1 and 2

(Art. 6-1, 6-2) that the manner of taking evidence during the

investigation was unfair in general in that the authorities ignored any

evidence in his defence.

     The Commission notes that the applicant's appeal is still pending

before the Supreme Court and recalls that, in principle, it can only

assess the fairness of criminal proceedings when it is able to consider

them in their entirety (cf., No. 9000/80, Dec. 11.3.82, D.R. 28,

p. 127). In the present case, the Commission considers that, until the

relevant proceedings have finished, the applicant's complaint as to the

fairness of proceedings is premature. It follows that this part of the

application is likewise manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected

under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

4.   The applicant also complains under Article 8 (Art. 8) that his

correspondence, while detained on remand, was delayed by the

authorities and that his concubine, a Romanian citizen, was denied a

residence permit in Hungary, allegedly with regard to the criminal

proceedings conducted against him. However, the Commission finds that

the applicant's submissions do not disclose any appearance of a

violation of his rights under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention. It

follows that this part of the application is likewise manifestly ill-

founded and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of

the Convention.

     For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

     DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                              J. LIDDY

        Secretary                                 President

   to the First Chamber                      of the First Chamber