[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Imre, Maglodi, Csaky and Barkanyi against Hungary - 53129/99 [2011] ECHR 2163 (2 December 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2163.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2163

[New search] [Contents list] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)222¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Imre, Maglódi, Csáky and Bárkányi against Hungary

(Application No. 53129/99, 30103/02, 32768/03 and 37214/05, judgments of 02/12/2003, 09/11/2004, 28/03/2006 and 30/06/2009, final on 02/03/2004, 09/02/2005, 28/06/2006

and 30/09/2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ privation of liberty (violations of Article 5, paragraph 3) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of

- individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- general measures preventing, similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)222

Information on the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Imre, Maglódi, Csáky and Bárkányi against Hungary

Introductory case summaries

These cases concern the excessive length of the applicants’ deprivation of liberty due to the lack of sufficient reasons to justify it (violations of Article 5, paragraph 3).

In the cases of Imre and Maglódi, the Court found that the periods of the applicants’ detention on remand, which lasted for two years and nine months in 1997-2000 and four years and five months in 1999-2003 respectively, were excessive. In the case of Bárkányi, the Court likewise found that the applicant’s privation of liberty for almost two years and three months (07/2005-09/2007), including fourteen months of pre-trial detention and thirteen months of house arrest, was excessive. In all three cases, the Court held that the domestic courts had prolonged the applicants’ privation of liberty referring solely to the seriousness of the alleged crimes and the ensuing risk of absconding. However, the domestic courts had failed to point out any specific reasons which could have reasonably led the authorities to assume that the applicants would abscond.

In the case of Csáky, the Court noted that the principal reason for the applicant’s detention on remand in 2002-2004 was the danger of absconding and, to a lesser extent, that of collusion. The Court found that the domestic courts should have made their assessment in the light of the applicant’s serious psychiatric condition and should have considered placing him in a civilian institution instead of continuing to reiterate that, given the seriousness of the charges against him, there was a risk that the applicant would abscond.

I. Payments of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

1) Imre case: The applicant was convicted of narcotics abuse and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment in 2000. He was conditionally released in 2003.

2) Maglódi case: The applicant was still detained when the Court delivered its judgment. The domestic court had justified his prolonged detention, inter alia, on the ground of the severity of the crime and the fact that the applicant was under investigation for another murder. On 07/12/2005 (following the Court’s judgment), the first-instance court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 20 years. In its judgment, the said court took into account the excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand, including the period after the Court’s judgment, as a mitigating circumstance.

3) Csáky case: The applicant was released in October 2004. In June 2005, the criminal proceedings against him were stayed as he was not mentally capable of standing trial.

4) Bárkányi case: In September 2007, the applicant was found guilty of trafficking in stolen goods and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment suspended.

II. General measures

1) Legislative measures

The Hungarian authorities indicated that several measures have been taken with a view to (i) reducing the length of the detention on remand and (ii) ensuring that specific reasons are provided for decisions ordering such detention.

First, pursuant to a provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP), which entered into force on 01/05/2006, courts may order detention on remand only as a last resort while taking into account the principle of proportionality. Detention on remand may only be ordered on the grounds specified under section 129§2 of the CCP. Those grounds are as follows:

(a) the accused escaped or hid from the court, prosecutor or the investigative authority, or has attempted to escape, or during a given procedure another criminal procedure is launched against him/her for an offence punishable by imprisonment;

(b) there is a well-founded ground to presume that his/her presence may not be secured otherwise;

(c) there is a well-founded ground to presume that, if not detained on remand, the accused would frustrate, hinder or threaten the proceedings through influencing or intimidating witnesses, eliminating, forging or hiding material evidence or documents;

(d) there is a well-founded ground to presume that, if not detained on remand, the accused would accomplish the attempted or prepared offence or would commit another offence punishable by imprisonment.

Secondly, according to amendments made to the CCP, which entered into force on 01/07/2003, domestic courts must give detailed reasons for their decisions. They are also obliged to evaluate more attentively the facts on which decisions prolonging detention on remand are based.

Thirdly, pursuant to the foregoing amendments made to the CCP, the risk that an accused might abscond shall no longer be deduced from the seriousness of the alleged crime alone (Art. 129§(2)b). The Hungarian authorities have also indicated that, according to the well established practice of the domestic courts, the risk that an accused might abscond must be established on the basis of specific evidence and not on the basis of presumptions.

2) Training and awareness

The Hungarian authorities underlined the training of judges, which took place following the Maglódi case. They indicated in this respect that this judgment was discussed at the 2005 annual meeting of the heads of criminal divisions in regional courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court. In particular, the attention of the heads of criminal divisions was drawn to the application of the Convention by domestic courts and to the issues concerning criminal proceedings, such as the excessive length of detention pending trial and the grounds for such detention.

During further training, judges’ attention was drawn to the above mentioned provisions of the CCP and they were advised to observe them in their reasoning.

3) Publication and dissemination

The Court’s judgments were published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement (www.irm.gov.hu). The Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement has also sent judgments in the cases of Imre and Csáky to the National Judicial Council for dissemination to judges. In addition, the Court’s judgment in the case of Imre was published in the human rights quarterly Acta Humana, No. 1/2004.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.