SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 64703/11 Róbert Miklós FUTÓ against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 25 March 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller, President, András Sajó , Egidijus Kūris , judges , and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 October 2011 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 2 2 January 2014 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Róbert Miklós Futó , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest .

The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi , Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice .

The application was communicated to the Government .

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 11 February 2005 the applicant was apprehended on charges of murder. His pre-trial detention was ordered by the Pest Central District Court on 14 February 2005.

On 6 April 2006 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was charged with aggravated murder and abuse of firearms.

On 12 August 2008 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment.

On appeal, on 23 April 2009 the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed this decision and remitted the case. The applicant ’ s detention was maintained.

The detention was regularly prolonged at the statutory intervals for the risk of his absconding in the face of the serious charges. His requests for release, with or without bail, in which he made references to his social and family ties, were rejected.

It is not clear from the facts of the case if and when the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was terminated or replaced by detention upon conviction.

COMPLAINT

Without relying on any particular provision of the Convention, the applicant complain ed about his protracted pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand. He did not rely on any particular provision of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter submitted on 2 2 January 2014 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government note that the efforts with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case have been unsuccessful.

In this situation the Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement of the unreasonable length of the pre-trial detention in which the applicant was involved.

Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay 7,000 (seven thousand) euros to the applicant, Mr Róbert Miklós Futó .

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added taxes paid on lawyers ’ fees), will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.

The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as „any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. ”

The applicant did not comment on the declaration.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” .

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey , [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ) no. 28953/03).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Hungary , its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article5 § 3 (see, for example, Maglódi v. Hungary , no. 30103/02, 9 November 2004).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Stanley Naismith Helen Keller Registrar President