BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 62631/11
György GÁL
against Hungary
lodged on 3 October 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr György Gál, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Ms K. Tóth, a lawyer practising in Budapest.

A.  The circumstances of the case

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

It appears that in 2006 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on charges of aggravated fraud and other offences committed in a criminal network.

On 27 November 2008 he was detained on remand. His detention was prolonged at the statutory intervals; references were made to the dangers of him absconding or colluding and that of repetition of crime. His requests for release or house arrest were to no avail, and he would have been released only against bail of 100 million Hungarian forints (HUF)[1] which he could not pay since the entirety of his assets had already been attached. On 28 July 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal rejected one of his appeals without awaiting the reasoned appeal of his lawyer.

The applicant submits that the courts gave no adequate reasoning as to the existence of the dangers invoked, especially given the facts that he had voluntarily returned from abroad and placed himself at the authorities’ disposal at the beginning of the proceedings, that his detention continued even after the closing of the investigation, and that his previous employment – the alleged framework of the offences reproached against him – had already ceased. Moreover, the authorities have failed to establish a reasonable suspicion against him, notably by refusing to appoint a forensic accountant.

On 9 November 2010 a bill of indictment was preferred in the case. On 7 April 2011 the Budapest Regional Court started hearing the case. It appears that the proceedings are still pending and the applicant is still in pre-trial detention.

During his detention, the applicant – a father of five including three minors – could receive visits from his family once a month, for one hour. Until 18 May 2009 he could maintain phone contact only with his lawyer. Afterwards, this regime has been attenuated gradually. At present, he can maintain unlimited phone contacts with his lawyer and can talk to his family members three times a week, for ten minutes on each occasion.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his pre-trial detention has been unjustified and lasted an unreasonably long time, in view of the fact that the courts did not give adequate reasoning as to the existence of the dangers of him absconding or colluding and that of repetition of crime and failed to establish a reasonable suspicion against him, an expert being wanting in the case. His right to remedy in this field was impaired on account of the prematurely adopted decision of 28 July 2010.

Moreover, he complains that the proceedings have been unfair and lasted an unreasonably long time.

He also submits that the scarcity of family contacts represented an unjustified interference with his right to respect for family life.

He relies on Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 as well as Articles 6, 8 and 13.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2.  Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3.  Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, given the scarcity of his family contacts while detained (see István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, §§ 33 to 39, 17 January 2012)?