CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 20 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .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 } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s29A3AC47 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s37072F3C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s9A177BD5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD58C010 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8E0918A8 { width:37.55pt; display:inline-block } .s908C35FA { width:156.77pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF HORVÁTH AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY (Applications nos. 33640/20 and 24 others – see appended list)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 20 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Horváth and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Gilberto Felici , President ,   Péter Paczolay,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Attila Teplán, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 30 May 2024, 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 applicants were represented by Ms E. Frank, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 3.     The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications. THE FACTS 4.     The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 5.     The applicants complained of their life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after a lengthy period of time. THE LAW JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 6.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 of the Convention 7.     Sentenced to life imprisonment, the applicants complained that they could be released on parole only after having served a very long time. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 8.     The Court reiterates that the automatic review of a sentence after a specified minimum term represents an important safeguard for the prisoner against the risk of detention in violation of Article 3. The relevant principles have been summarised in Hutchinson v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no.   57592/08, §§ 66-68, 17 January 2017), and Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom ([GC], nos. 66069/09 and 2 others, § 44, ECHR 2013 (extracts)). 9.     In the leading case of Bancsók and László Magyar v. Hungary (no. 2), (nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15, 28 October 2021), the Court already found a violation in respect of life sentences with a possibility of release on parole only after a lengthy period of time. 10.     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. In the light of its case-law on the subject, it considers that the fact that the applicants can hope to have their progress towards release reviewed only after they have served a very lengthy period of time is sufficient to conclude that these life sentences cannot be regarded as reducible for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. Such a long waiting period unduly delays the domestic authorities’ review of “whether any changes in the life prisoner are so significant, and such progress towards rehabilitation has been made in the course of the sentence, as to mean that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds” (see Vinter and Others , cited above, § 119). 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 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.     The Court considers that its finding of a violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction and accordingly makes no award in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, in particular, Bancsók and László Magyar (no.2) , cited above,   §   52). 14.     As to costs and expenses, regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications admissible; Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the life sentence with a possibility of release on parole only after a lengthy period of time; Holds (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; Dismisses the remainder of the applicants’ claims for just satisfaction. Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Attila Teplán   Gilberto Felici   Acting Deputy Registrar   President       APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (life sentence with a possibility of release on parole only after a lengthy period of time) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Name of the court Date of the final judgment Minimum term to be served after sentencing before eligibility for release Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [1]     33640/20 27/07/2020 János HORVÁTH 1970 Frank Evelyn Budapest Supreme Court, 03/09/2002 28 years 3 months 250     33754/20 27/07/2020 János NAGY 1990 Frank Evelyn Budapest Szeged Court of Appeal, 18/10/2016 25 years 6 months 250     35003/20 30/07/2020 Gusztáv JONÁS 1985 Frank Evelyn Budapest Debrecen Court of Appeal, 13/11/2009 27 years 250     35006/20 30/07/2020 József CSIKI 1977 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 05/12/2012 26 years 3 months 250     35978/20 05/08/2020 Victor ZSIGA 1978 Frank Evelyn Budapest Kúria , 05/12/2018 37 years 3 months 15 days 250     36342/20 05/08/2020 Attila MÉHAY 1975 Frank Evelyn Budapest Debrecen Court of Appeal, 09/02/2010 36 years 2 months 250     36618/20 12/08/2020 Kálmán KOLOMPÁR 1979 Frank Evelyn Budapest Supreme Court, 16/04/2003 30 years 250     36667/20 12/08/2020 László FEKETE 1982 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 04/01/2012 42 years 11 months 250     36938/20 12/08/2020 Endre ZSIGA 1981 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 24/06/2010 27 years 9 months 250   36939/20 12/08/2020 Sándor SZALONTAI 1959 Frank Evelyn Budapest Szeged Court of Appeal,   25/09/2008 29 years 3 months 15 days 250   36964/20 12/08/2020 Viktor BOKODI 1974 Frank Evelyn Budapest Pécs Court of Appeal, 16/01/2006 28 years 3 months 250   36967/20 12/08/2020 Ferenc GOMÁN 1985 Frank Evelyn Budapest Kúria , 24/02/2015 28 years 3 months 250   37127/20 12/08/2020 Antal FARKAS 1987 Frank Evelyn Budapest Szeged Court of Appeal, 13/03/2012 28 years 4 months 250   39062/20 18/08/2020 János SZTOJKA 1968 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 21/02/2012 27 years 9 months 250   39071/20 17/08/2020 Imre SZIVÁK-TÓTH 1965 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 25/03/2009 33 years 2 months 250   39088/20 18/08/2020 Sándor MAGÓCSI 1959 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 13/12/2012 28 years 7 months 250   39091/20 18/08/2020 Kálmán LAKATOS 1970 Frank Evelyn Budapest Debrecen Court of Appeal, 04/03/2015 30 years 11 months 250   40051/20 18/08/2020 Tamás CSIKI 1980 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 05/12/2012 32 years 250   40693/20 03/09/2020 Noé ÁBRAHÁM 1975 Frank Evelyn Budapest Kúria , 17/10/2017 26 years 2 months 250   40696/20 03/09/2020 László Ákos IVANICS 1987 Frank Evelyn Budapest Szeged Court of Appeal,   13/11/2013 28 years 250   40697/20 03/09/2020 Róbert JÓNÁS 1983 Frank Evelyn Budapest Budapest Court of Appeal, 24/06/2010 33 years 9 months 250   40698/20 03/09/2020 Géza András MEZEI 1977 Frank Evelyn Budapest Szeged Court of Appeal, 22/03/2005 28 years 10 months 250   44543/20 21/09/2020 József NYISZTER 1969 Frank Evelyn Budapest Debrecen Court of Appeal, 16/12/2009 30 years 11 months 250   44546/20 21/09/2020 László PÉNTEK 1986 Frank Evelyn Budapest Pécs Court of Appeal, 28/08/2013 39 years 10 months 250   45015/20 21/09/2020 Dezső HORVÁTH 1969 Frank Evelyn Budapest Debrecen Court of Appeal, 13/11/2009 26 years 11 months 250     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.