CASE OF SOMOGYI v. HUNGARY
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)
Carlo Ranzoni
4. The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Százhalombatta. 5. On 11 April 2009, quoting the relevant sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Pest Central District Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on charges of terrorist acts and other related offences involving abuse of firearms and explosives on the grounds that he might abscond for fear of a severe punishment, might frustrate the on-going investigation by colluding with accomplices still at large, or might execute the planned offences or re-offend. 6. The detention measure was extended on 8 May and again on 7 August 2009. The court reiterated its earlier reasons, adding that the risk of collusion was serious, since certain other suspects had not yet been apprehended. 7. A further extension was ordered on 9 November 2009. The court stated that the applicant was being prosecuted for terrorist acts committed as an associate of an organised criminal group whose plans entailed a real risk of loss of life. It was of note that the group had existed for quite some time and had been committed to carrying out terrorist acts. Moreover, the volume of evidence supporting a reasonable suspicion, as weighed individually against the applicant, was increasing. 8. On 9 February 2010 the applicant’s detention was again extended, the court noting that, in view of the grounds for his detention, not even his clean criminal record, family ties and settled background could provide adequate justification for a less strict measure. 9. On 7 April 2010 the measure was renewed, with special reference to the fact that the case was concerned with a series of crimes committed over a long period of time by a criminal organisation. 10. On 9 June 2010 the Budapest Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held under house arrest, holding that the danger of his re-offending was not of a degree that justified his continued detention, noting also that the investigation was about to be wrapped up and that, in any case, some accomplices in the case had already been released pending trial. The applicant was released from detention the next day. During the ensuing period he complied with the rules of house arrest. 11. On 7 July 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal again ordered the applicant’s detention. It held that the charges of several very serious offences committed over a long time in an organised group were of such gravity that they could not be addressed merely by house arrest. 12. The measure was extended on 4 August 2010. In addition to the previously cited reasons, the court considered that there was no reason to assume that the applicant’s political motivation behind the incriminated acts had subsided, which meant that the risk of re-offending was real. 13. On 24 November 2010 the Budapest Court of Appeal ordered the applicant’s house arrest, observing that the applicant had abided by the previous house arrest (see paragraph 10 above) and holding that the risk of re-offending was slight. 14. On 20 September 2012 the applicant’s house arrest was replaced by a restraining order, which was eventually lifted on 6 July 2014. 15. On 22 April 2015 the applicant was again detained on remand for the purposes of prosecution for a new offence allegedly committed during the on-going proceedings. He was accused of having threatened and harassed a relative of one of the witnesses in the main case. For want of evidence, this new investigation was discontinued on 30 October 2015. 16. On 18 December 2015 the applicant was released from detention and put under house arrest, which lasted until 27 July 2016. 17. On 30 August 2016 the applicant and his accomplices were convicted. He was sentenced to 12 years in a strict-regime prison. 18. Both the defendants and the prosecution appealed. The outcome of the ensuing proceedings is unknown.