5.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Budapest. 6.  On 4 December 2010 the applicant and his alleged accomplice were apprehended by the police.
On 6 December 2010 the applicant’s pre-trial detention was ordered by the Pest Central District Court on charges of multiple thefts by breaking into three cars and attempting to break in a fourth (all committed in one day, in the approximate value of altogether 400 euros), for fear of repetition of crime under section 129 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In its reasoning the court noted that the applicant did not have a job or any other income and that the criminal acts allegedly committed were of serial nature.
The applicant was present at this hearing without his public defender attending.
On 14 December 2010 the Budapest Regional Court, acting as a second-instance court, dismissed his appeal, reiterating that the applicant was unemployed without income and adding that no less restrictive measure could be applied. 7.  On 20 December 2010 the applicant applied for release, arguing that the courts had not specified any facts supporting the perceived risk of repetition of crime. He submitted documents showing that he was about to be employed and that his mother was willing to pay for his living expenses until his salary became available. He also referred to the fact that he had no criminal record. 8.  On 12 January 2011 the Pest Central District Court refused the release application, without hearing the applicant or refuting the applicant’s arguments for his release. It repeated, in a rather stereotyped manner, that the serial nature of the crimes allegedly committed by the applicant and his financial circumstances gave rise to the risk of repetition of crime.
On 22 February 2011 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, without holding a hearing.
All these proceedings took place entirely in writing. 9.  Meanwhile the prosecution requested the prolongation of the applicant’s detention but did not inform his lawyer of this motion. On 28 December 2010 the prolongation was ordered until 6 March 2011, without hearing the applicant. In these proceedings the findings of the court remained the same, namely that the applicant not having either an employment or any income would reoffend, that is, continue with the serial crime he was accused of. Simultaneously, a further application for release submitted by the applicant’s alleged accomplice was dismissed. 10.  On 19 January 2011 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the prolongation order, without the applicant attending; the court was satisfied that the applicant’s unemployment and the serial nature of the alleged criminal acts justified his continued detention on remand. 11.  A further prolongation request was processed by the District Court on 3 March 2011. Although this time the defence had been notified, the court did not await its observations on prolongation, and maintained the applicant’s detention, in essence relying on the grounds previously quoted.
However, the applicant successfully appealed and was released on 13 April 2011. The Regional Court noted that the applicant’s financial situation was secured, pointed out that the mere fact that a suspect was unemployed did not establish the risk of repetition of crime, especially since he had no previous criminal record, and, moreover, that several counts of larceny committed in one day did not qualify as serial crime.