CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .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 }   Published on 15 July 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55237/21 Csaba KISS against Hungary lodged on 29 October 2021 communicated on 25 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged procedural irregularities in the proceedings on the prolongation of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment. The applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted grievous bodily harm on 14 May 2020. Two days later he was placed in pre-trial detention. On 25   August 2020, based on the findings of an expert psychiatric report, the Buda Central District Court ordered his compulsory psychiatric treatment in the Asylum for the Criminally Insane (“IMEI”). The court found that there was a strong likelihood that the applicant would commit a new criminal offence punishable by imprisonment if released. The court has since prolonged his compulsory treatment on several occasions. Invoking Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he did not receive the prosecutor’s motion for the prolongation of his compulsory treatment prior to the court’s decision on the matter on 28   January 2021, giving rise to an infringement of the principle of “equality of arms”. He further complains that the Court of Appeal, having adopted its decision on 30 April 2021, that is more than three months after the first instance decision, failed to review his appeal in a speedy manner.           QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in conformity with Article   5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the prosecution respected in the present case (see mutatis mutandis Bandur v. Hungary , no. 50130/12, §§ 82-84, 5 July 2016)?   2. Did the length of the proceedings, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §   256, 4 December 2018, and Piotr Baranowski v. Poland , no.   39742/05, §§ 64-67, 2 October 2007)?