LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
CASE OF LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 1561/21;5761/21;19324/21;19376/21;19639/21;25698/21;25702/21;26914/21;27717/21;34350/21 • ECHR ID: 001-215902
Document date: February 24, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 4
CASE OF LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 1561/21;5761/21;19324/21;19376/21;19639/21;25698/21;25702/21;26914/21;27717/21;34350/21 • ECHR ID: 001-215902
Document date: February 24, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LAKATOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 1561/21 and 9 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 February 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lakatos and Others v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President, Raffaele Sabato, Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 February 2022,
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. Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
6. The applicants complained principally 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, KudÅ‚a 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 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 applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
11. Some applicants submitted further complaints under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention which also raised issues, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in among many authorities, Bandur v. Hungary , no. 50130/12, §§ 79 to 85, 5 July 2016.
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. 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.
14. 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,
(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 24 February 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Attila Teplán Alena Poláčková
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
Other complaints under well-established case-law
Amount awarded for pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant
(in euros) [1]
1561/21
17/12/2020
Gyula LAKATOS
1980Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
12/03/2019
pending
More than 2 year(s) and 10 month(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeals on detention were decided upon after delays of 3.5 months and 1.5 months.
5,100
5761/21
11/01/2021
Ferenc ARNOLD
1971Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
09/05/2018 to
08/09/2020
2 year(s) and 4 month(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory 6 ‑ month review was carried out with a delay of 12 days. Furthermore, the applicant’s appeals on detention were decided upon with delays of 1 and 1.5 months.
4,100
19324/21
25/03/2021
Attila LÁSZLÓ
1983Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
01/04/2019 to
07/12/2020
1 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 7 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Three appeals of detention were decided on with 2-month delays. The statutory 6-month and 1 ‑ year reviews were omitted.
3,200
19376/21
31/03/2021
Ferenc Miklós LÁZÓK
1989Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
28/12/2016 to
22/12/2020
3 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 25 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention - The obligatory reviews of his detention that are due in every six months either took place with a considerable delay or did not take place at all (the two-year review).
6,800
19639/21
24/03/2021
Szabolcs BODÓ
1985Kiss Dominika Szilvia
Budapest
28/03/2019 to
11/11/2020
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 15 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The applicant’s appeal against the decision maintaining the detention after the indictment was decided on with a delay of two months. The obligatory six-month review was carried out with a delay of one month. The obligatory one-year review was not carried out at all.
3,000
25698/21
10/05/2021
Dezső VARGA
1984Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
05/05/2018 to
03/05/2021
2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 29 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The obligatory one ‑ year detention review was carried out with a delay of 13 months. The 1.5-, 2- and 2.5-year reviews were not carried out at all.
5,100
25702/21
06/05/2021
Pierre Francesco VASTA
1992Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
19/07/2019 to
17/12/2020
1 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 29 day(s)
2,000
26914/21
13/05/2021
Zsolt TOKODI
1983Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
07/10/2019 to
10/05/2021
1 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 4 day(s)
2,300
27717/21
14/05/2021
Ervis KRUJA
1987Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
28/01/2019 to
05/05/2021
2 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 8 day(s)
3,100
34350/21
23/06/2021
Emil Dávid MERUCZA
1994Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
21/08/2019 to
14/07/2021
1 year(s) and 10 month(s) and 24 day(s)
Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - Three detention appeals were decided on with delays of 1, 1.5 and 2 months.
3,500
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2026
