CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sA4B8EC36 { width:154.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s84B1B527 { width:102.26%; margin-left:6.85pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s5A429EDD { width:3.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s1FB38C32 { width:34.9%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6E7A4683 { width:21.66%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2DC5D8D1 { width:19.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBD5AFC1C { width:19.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s20E474DD { width:3.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2F4F323A { width:34.9%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3BEDA0DD { width:21.66%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2AFCCCE8 { width:19.82%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAF3DE717 { width:19.8%; border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 3231/17 Fattoum HASSAN and Others against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12   March   2024 as a Committee composed of:   Gilberto Felici , President ,   Péter Paczolay,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   3231/17) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 30 December 2016 by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) who were represented by Mr T. Fazekas, a lawyer practising in Budapest; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, from the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The case concerns the house arrest of the applicants, Syrian nationals, and raises issues under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. 2 .     On 16 September 2015 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicants for attempting to illegally cross the Hungarian-Serbian border. On 19 September 2015 the Szeged District Court ordered their house arrest. The measure was carried out at the Kiskunhalas Immigration Detention Centre. 3 .     On 29 September 2015 the Szeged High Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals and upheld the first-instance court’s decision. 4 .     On 16 October 2015 the applicants’ house arrest was prolonged for two months, until 19 December 2015. Upon their appeal, the High Court upheld the impugned decisions on 2 December 2015, as regards the second and third applicants, and on 15 December 2015, as regards the first applicant (the first set of prolongation proceedings). 5 .     On 16 December 2015, with respect to the first and third applicants, and on 18 December 2015, with respect to the second applicant, the District Court ordered a prolongation of the measure “up to the decision of the court of first instance during the preparations for the trial but no longer than for one month” (the second set of the prolongation decisions). It explicitly stated 19   January 2016 as the date of the expiration of the prolonged measure in the decisions concerning the first and second applicants, and 19 December 2015 in the decision concerning the third applicant. The applicants appealed. 6 .     On 30 December 2015 the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicants. On 15 January 2016 the District Court, as the trial court, ordered the prolongation of the applicants’ house arrest until the delivery of its final decision. The High Court dismissed the applicants’ appeals on 8 March 2016 (the third set of prolongation proceedings). 7 .     Meanwhile, on 5 February 2016, with respect to the second applicant, and on 12 February 2016, with respect to the first and third applicants, the High Court, having official knowledge of the District Court’s decisions of 15   January 2016, held that a review on the merits of the applicants’ appeals against the second set of prolongation decisions (see paragraph 5 above) was no longer necessary. With respect to the third applicant’s complaint that his house arrest had had no legal basis since 19 December 2015, it held that the impugned decision clearly stated that the measure was prolonged for a maximum of one month irrespective of the clerical error as to the explicitly stated expiration date. It rectified the decision by replacing the wrong date with the right one, that is to say, 19 January 2016. 8 .     At the hearing of 18 March 2016, the applicants again requested the termination of their house arrest. The District Court dismissed their requests. On 6 April 2016, upon appeal by the applicants, the High Court upheld the lower court’s decision. 9 .     At the hearings of 27 to 29 April 2016, the District Court rejected the applicants’ renewed requests for the termination of the measure. No appeal was available. On 1 July 2016 the District Court convicted the applicants and issued conditional sentences as well as ordered their expulsion. The applicants left Hungary before the High Court dismissed their appeals on 28   February 2017. 10.     The third applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 that his house arrest after 19   December 2015 had no legal basis as it had expired on that date. Furthermore, all three applicants complained that the proceedings for prolongation of their house arrest undermined the “equality of arms” inherent in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention because they had received the public prosecutor’s motions to prolong the measure only after the District Court’s respective decisions had already been taken and because some of their appeals had not been reviewed on the merits. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 11.     The Government argued that the applicants’ representative had not demonstrated that he was still in contact with the applicants, which should warrant a conclusion that the applicants did not intend to pursue their application. They further argued that the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to them. The applicants disagreed. 12.     The Court does not find it necessary to rule on the above objections since the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons. 13.     The Court notes that the Government did not raise an objection as to the applicants’ non-compliance with the six-month rule [1] . However, the Court has already held that the six-month rule is a public policy rule and that, consequently, it has jurisdiction to apply it of its own motion (see Blokhin v.   Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, § 102, 23 March 2016). Complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention 14 .     The Court notes that the third applicant complained under Article   5   §   1 that his house arrest after 19   December 2015 had no legal basis as it had expired on that date. It further observes that the six-month period runs from the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies (see Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, § 65, 11 December 2018). 15 .     In this respect, the Court notes that the final decision in relation to the present complaint to be taken into account under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention is the High Court’s decision of 12 February 2016 (see paragraph 7 above). Since the present application was lodged on 30 December 2016, it follows that this complaint has been introduced outside the six-month time ‑ limit. Complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention 16.     Turning to the applicants’ complaint that the proceedings for prolongation of their house arrest undermined the “equality of arms” inherent in Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicants complain against several decisions of the District Court and the High Court concerning the prolongation of their house arrest. The most recent and final decisions within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see paragraph 14 above) are those of the High Court of 6 April 2016 (see paragraph 8 above) and of the District Court issued at the hearings of 27 to 29 April 2016 (see paragraph 9 above). Taking account of the date on which the present application was lodged with the Court (30 December 2016), it follows that the complaints against the impugned decisions have also been introduced outside the six-month time-limit. 17.     It follows that this application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected in application of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 April 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Gilberto Felici   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of applicants:   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Fattoum HASSAN 1960 Syrian Bückeburg 2. Mohammed AZIZ 1963 Syrian Unknown 3. Ghazy FAHDAWY 1986 Syrian Unknown   [1] Protocol No. 15 to the Convention has shortened the time-limit provided for by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention to four months from the final domestic decision. However, in the present case the six-month period still applies, given that the final domestic decisions were taken prior to 1 February 2022, date of entry into force of the new rule (pursuant to Article   8   § 3 of Protocol No. 15 to the Convention).