Communicated on 14 March 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 29541/15 Gábor MOLNÁR against Hungary lodged on 12 June 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gábor Molnár , is a Hungarian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Sajószöged . He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Kovács , a lawyer practising in Miskolc.

On 31 August 2014 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County main police department questioned the applicant as a suspect. According to the police department, on 30 August 2014 the applicant, together with two other suspects, had “placed a new psychoactive substance on the market ”, within the meaning of Article 184 of the Criminal Code. The applicant was suspected of having sold illegal substances for financial gain on the premises of a private company. The applicant did not give a statement.

On 2 September 2014 the Tiszaújváros district prosecutor ’ s office asked the Tiszaújváros District Court to issue a detention order in respect of the applicant. In the application for that order, a summary of the suspicions against the applicant was set out firstly. Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant had two prior convictions: on 4 February 2013 he had been found guilty of disorderly conduct and sentenced to six months ’ imprisonment, suspended for a year; and on 12 June 2014 he had been found guilty of the minor offence of possession of a small quantity of narcotic drugs and fined 200,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 650 euros (EUR)). The prosecutor submitted that, considering the applicant ’ s link to his clients, there was a reasonable suspicion that, if at liberty, he could compromise the ongoing investigation by exerting pressure on witnesses. The prosecutor further argued that there was a real risk that the applicant would abscond, owing to the severity of the possible punishment.

On 2 September 2014 the Tiszaújváros District Court remanded the applicant in custody. It summarised the suspicions against him, referred to the result of house searches carried out at a number of locations belonging to either the suspects or their family members, and concluded that there was a reasonable suspicion of the applicant having committed the crime. The court reiterated the prosecutor ’ s arguments as to the need for the applicant ’ s detention – the arguments that, in the absence of detention, he could influence witnesses and would reoffend, given the large quantity of illegal material found during the house searches.

That decision was upheld on appeal by the Miskolc High Court on 16 September 2014, which concurred with the lower court ’ s opinion and added, without giving further reasons, that a non-custodial measure could not ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.

On 26 September 2014 the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was extended by the Tiszaújváros District Court until 2 January 2015. Without providing further explanation, the court reiterated its position that the applicant, if left at liberty, would tamper with evidence, reoffend and abscond.

The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed, challenging the existence of any reasonable suspicion. Relying on the Court ’ s case-law, he also argued that the severity of the possible punishment could not in itself substantiate the risk of reoffending. He also maintained that the risk of the applicant ’ s tampering with evidence and reoffending was unfounded. Furthermore, no reasons had been given as to why a less restrictive measure could not ensure the applicant ’ s presence during the proceedings.

On 21 October 2014 the Miskolc High Court upheld the first-instance decision, without giving further reasons.

On 13 December 2014 the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was extended until 2 March 2015, the previous arguments in favour of such detention being repeated.

The applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed on 13 January 2015.

On 26 February 2015 the Tiszaújváros District Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention until 2 May. It noted again that the severity of the punishment demonstrated in itself the risk of the applicant ’ s absconding. The court also relied on the quantity of the seized illegal material in finding that there was a risk of the applicant ’ s reoffending and tampering with evidence. An appeal against that decision was dismissed on 26 March 2015.

The Tiszaújváros District Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention again on 28 April 2015, as provided for in Article 129 § 2 (b) to (d) of the Criminal Procedure Code, because of the risk of his absconding, tampering with evidence and reoffending. An appeal by the applicant against that decision was unsuccessful.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention has been repeatedly extended without the courts indicating any evidence which would support his actual involvement in the crime in question. In respect of the risks of his reoffending, tampering with evidence and absconding, the courts ignored the arguments and evidence presented by him and applied only formulaic reasoning.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Have the repeated extensions of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, given the rather formulaic reasoning provided by the courts and the apparent lack of consideration of alternative measures?