SECRETARIAT / SECRÉTARIAT SECRETARIAT OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS SECRÉTARIAT DU COMITÉ DES MINISTRES Contact: Zoe Bryanston-Cross Tel: 03.90.21.59.62 Date: 06/07/2020 DH-DD(2020)607 Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Meeting: 1383rd meeting (29 September - 1 October 2020) (DH) Item reference: Action Report (03/07/2020) Communication from Hungary concerning the group of cases GUBACSI v. Hungary (Application No. 44 686/07) * * * * * * * * * * * Les documents distribués à la demande d’un/e Représentant/e le sont sous la seule responsabilité dudit/de ladite Représentant/e, sans préjuger de la position juridique ou politique du Comité des Ministres. Réunion : 1383e réunion (29 septembre - 1 octobre 2020) (DH) Référence du point : Bilan d’action (03/07/2020) Communication de la Hongrie concernant le groupe d'affaires GUBACSI c. Hongrie (requête n° 44686/ 07) (anglais uniquement) DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. Group Action Report of 3 July 2020 in the cases of Gubacsi v. Hungary (Appl. No. 44686/07, judgment of 28/06/2011, final on 28/09/2011), Borbála Kiss v. Hungary (Appl. No. 59214/11, judgment of 26/06/2012, final on 26/09/2012), Csonka v. Hungary (Appl. No. 48455/14, final judgment of 16/04/2019), Haász and Szabó v. Hungary (Appl. No. 11327/14, judgment of 13/10/2015, final on 13/01/2016), Kovács v. Hungary (Appl. No. 21314/15, final judgment of 29/01/2019), László Károly (No.2.) v. Hungary (Appl. No. 50218/08, judgment of 12/02/2013, final on 12/05/2013), M.F. v. Hungary (Appl. No. 45855/12, judgment of 31/10/2017, final on 05/03/2018), R.S. v. Hungary (Appl. No. 65290/14, judgment of 02/07/2019, final on 02/10/2019), Réti and Fizli v. Hungary (Appl. No. 31373/11, judgment of 25/09/2012, final on 25/12/2012), Tarjáni v. Hungary (Appl. No. 29609/16, judgment of 10/10/2017, final on 10/01/2018), Terge v. Hungary (Appl. No. 3625/15, final judgment of 27/02/2018), Nagy v. Hungary (Appl. No. 43441/15, final judgment: 26/05/2020) Case description 1. This group of cases concerns ill-treatment (between 2000 and 2016) by law enforcement officers, lack of adequate investigations in this respect, violations of the right to life or failure to investigate possible racist motives for ill-treatment (substantial and/or procedural violations of Articles 2, 3, and 14 in conjunction with Article 3). The issue under Article 14 is examined in the context of the Balázs group (No. 15529/12). Individual measures 2. The rules regarding criminal proceedings are prescribed by a) Act XIX of 1998 on criminal proceedings (hereinafter: “the Old CPA”) in cases of abuses, where the report on the given abuse was adjudged before 30 June 2018, or b) Act XC of 2017 on criminal proceedings, which is applicable from 1 July 2018 (hereinafter: “the CPA”) Section 29 a) of the Old CPA stipulated – as part of the rules regarding the tasks and powers of the prosecution, that – except for the cases where military criminal proceeding shall be conducted – the prosecution has exclusive power to conduct investigations on crimes committed by the commissioned officers of the Police. As part of the sub-chapter of the CPA regarding the exclusive investigation powers of the prosecution, Section 30 a) of the CPA contains the same provision. In case of criminal proceedings started as a result of actions affected by the Court’s judgments, in the course of the possibilities for the prosecution to take investigation measures, one cannot disregard the statute of limitation provisions of the actually DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. prevailing criminal code, which may prevent further investigation actions – also considering any eventual interruption of the passage of time in calculating the passage of the statute of limitation. Therefore, one must examine the question of statute of limitation. a) According to the Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code, which was in effect until 30 June 2013 (hereinafter: “the Old CC”) – with certain exceptions – the enforcement of a penalty becomes time-barred when the time equal to the longest applicable punishment for the given crime – but unless this law otherwise provides – not less than three years lapses. According to Section 226 of the Old CC, the crime of mistreatment in official proceedings was punishable with up to three years imprisonment. Pursuant to Section 35 of the Old CC the statute of limitation shall be interrupted by any act of the authorities acting in criminal proceedings against the perpetrator in connection with the crime, and the period of limitation shall restart on the day of the interruption. b) Since 1 July 2013, Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code (hereinafter: “the CC”) applies, pursuant to Section 26 (1) of which the enforcement of a penalty becomes time-barred when the time equal to the longest applicable punishment for the given crime – except for the cases set forth in Sections 26 (2) and (3) of CC – not less than five years lapses. According to Section 301 of the CC, the crime of mistreatment in official proceedings is punishable with up to five years imprisonment, and the punishment is up to eight years if the crime is committed in a gang. Pursuant to Section 28 (1) of the CC, the statute of limitation shall be interrupted by any action of the court, the public prosecutor, the investigating authorities, or - in international cases - by the minister in charge of the judicial system or the competent foreign authority taken against the perpetrator in connection with the crime. The period of limitation shall restart on the day of the interruption. 3. In the case of Gubacsi v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (10,500 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,750 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 23 December 2011 (amount paid: 4,327,328 HUF; exchange rate: 306.83). 4. In the case of Borbála Kiss v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non- pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (5,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (3,000 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 21 November 2012 (amount paid: 2,250,480 HUF; exchange rate: 281.31). Since the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Police Department learnt about the ECHR judgment given in the above case, no new fact, data or circumstance have emerged necessitating the repeat of the formerly conducted internal investigations (as a result of which the police measure complained of was found to have been lawful, professionally adequate and justified) or the conduct of new proceedings. No individual measures were taken in the case, but the situation was analysed for general, preventive purposes. In order to avoid similar cases, the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Police Department devotes special attention to the continuous training and evaluation of the police staff, and since the case at issue young police officers have performed their service duties together with more experienced colleagues. DH-DD(2020)607: Communication from Hungary. Documents distributed at the request of a Representative shall be under the sole responsibility of the said Representative, without prejudice to the legal or political position of the Committee of Ministers. 5. In the case of Csonka v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (8,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (2,400 EUR) was paid to the applicant on 4 July 2019 (amount paid: 3,353,896 HUF; exchange rate: 322.49). 6. In the case of Haász and Szabó v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non- pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant (15,000 EUR) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (5,053 EUR) was paid to Ms. Haász on 13 April 2016 (amount paid: 6.230.868 HUF; exchange rate: 310.52). The applicants’ representative, Mr. G. Szabó sent submissions to the email address of the Central Complaint Office of the Control Service of the National Police Headquarters, which submissions were forwarded by the Complaint Office to the Veszprém County Police Department on 9 October 2018 so that action be taken where needed. In the submissions, the applicants filed damages claims in relation to a police measure taken by a police officer of the Balatonfüred Police Department. The judgment contained no circumstance necessitating a change in the position of the Veszprém County Police Department, therefore – in the absence of any legal ground for payment of damages – the claims for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages were found to be ill-founded. The legal representative was informed of this fact. 7. In the case of Kovács v. Hungary, just satisfaction awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants (9,000 EUR to each applicant) as well as in respect of costs and expenses (6,000 EUR to the applicants jointly) with 1,485 EUR tax was paid to the applicants on 25 April 2019 (amount paid: 14,011,737 HUF; exchange rate: 322.22).