Přehled
Rozsudek
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF KISS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 55237/21)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 January 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kiss v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir,
Hugh Mercer, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 55237/21) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 October 2021 by a Hungarian national, Mr Csaba Kiss (“the applicant”), who was born in 1984, lives in Budapest and was represented by Mr N. Grabovszky, a lawyer practising in Budapest;
the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning Article 5 § 4 of the Convention to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 16 December 2025,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns alleged procedural irregularities in proceedings to extend the applicant’s interim compulsory treatment (előzetes kényszergyógykezelés) in a mental health institution, pending criminal proceedings against him.
2. The applicant was arrested on 14 May 2020 on suspicion of attempted assault occasioning grievous bodily harm. Two days later he was placed in pre-trial detention. On 25 August 2020, on the basis of a forensic expert opinion stating that the applicant had been incapable of understanding the significance of his acts at the time of his arrest, the Buda Central District Court discontinued his pre-trial detention and ordered his interim compulsory treatment in the Forensic Psychiatric and Mental Institution (IMEI). The court found that there was a strong likelihood that the applicant would commit a new criminal offence punishable by imprisonment if released.
3. The applicant’s interim compulsory treatment was subsequently extended by court order on several occasions. One periodic review took place on 28 January 2021. At the request of the public prosecutor’s office – a request which was submitted to the court along with the relevant indictment on 21 January 2021 – the Pest Central District Court extended the applicant’s interim compulsory treatment until a first-instance decision was issued in his criminal case. The court, referring to the applicant’s criminal record and the findings of the expert opinion, found that there was still a substantial risk of his reoffending.
4. According to the Government, on 28 January 2021 the Pest Central District Court ordered that the applicant be served with the prosecutor’s application to extend his interim compulsory treatment, the indictment and its decision to extend his interim compulsory treatment.
5. The applicant lodged an appeal against the first-instance decision of the Pest Central District Court. The parties disagreed on when he had lodged that appeal with the court: according to the applicant, it had been lodged on 4 February 2021, but according to the Government, it had been lodged on 12 February 2021.
6. According to the information provided by the Government, the appeal was transferred to the Budapest High Court on 1 March 2021, where it was registered on 26 April 2021.
7. The Budapest High Court upheld the first-instance decision on 30 April 2021, in the context of urgent proceedings.
8. Relying on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had not received the prosecutor’s application to extend his interim compulsory treatment prior to the Pest Central District Court issuing a decision on the matter on 28 January 2021, which had violated the principle of “equality of arms”. He further complained that the Budapest High Court, having adopted its decision on 30 April 2021, more than three months after the first-instance decision, had failed to decide on his appeal in a speedy manner.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION
- The right to adversarial proceedings
9. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention about not having received the prosecutor’s request to extend his interim compulsory treatment prior to the District Court’s decision is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
10. The general principles concerning the right to adversarial proceedings in the context of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, and in particular the right to be informed of and to discuss any document or observation presented to the court for the purpose of influencing its decision, have been summarised in Lietzow v. Germany (no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I) and Bandur v. Hungary (no. 50130/12, § 79, 5 July 2016). In particular, in view of the dramatic impact of the deprivation of liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned, proceedings conducted under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention should meet the basic requirements of a fair trial, such as the right to an adversarial procedure and should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment on them (ibid.).
11. In the present case, on 28 January 2021 the Pest Central District Court reviewed whether it was necessary to extend the applicant’s interim compulsory treatment, without holding a hearing. The application by the public prosecutor’s office, dated 21 January 2021, was not provided to the applicant prior to the court issuing a decision on the matter, and was only served on him together with the court’s decision extending his interim compulsory treatment.
12. The Government argued that the applicant’s interim compulsory treatment had been extended without a court hearing because no new circumstances warranting the holding of a hearing had arisen, and in any case, the applicant had been able to appeal against the court decision and consequently challenge the prosecutor’s application to continue his interim compulsory treatment. The Court dismissed a similar argument in Bandur (cited above, §§ 82-84), finding that despite the fact that the applicant in that case had had the opportunity to appeal against a court decision (ibid., §§ 16‑17), the fact that he had not had the opportunity to have sight of the content of the prosecution’s applications to extend coercive measures before the first-instance court had issued that decision had prevented him from presenting any counterarguments before the court in an informed manner; therefore, he had not been able to effectively exercise his defence rights in the proceedings concerning the review of the lawfulness of the coercive measure.
13. The Court sees no reason to come to a different conclusion in the present case. It takes note of the Government’s argument that the Pest Central District Court decided on the prosecutor’s application for the maintenance of the applicant’s interim compulsory treatment on the basis of the case files, in accordance with Section 494 (2) of Act no. XC of 2017 on Criminal Procedures (“the Code of Criminal Procedure”), as no new circumstances arose that would have justified holding a hearing. There appears to be no legal provision that requires the prosecutor’s application to be shared with the suspect if the proceedings are carried out without a hearing, via a written procedure, and concern the extension of interim compulsory treatment. It is possible that the prosecutor’s application for the maintenance of an interim compulsory treatment does not mention new circumstances as grounds for maintaining the measure. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, without knowledge of the prosecutor’s application, a suspect cannot meaningfully dispute what is stated therein, which results in a situation in which it is not ensured that the parties are on an equal footing. Therefore, in view of the fact that, in accordance with domestic law, the applicant did not have the opportunity to have sight of or comment on the application lodged by the prosecutor’s office requesting the extension of his interim compulsory treatment, the principle of equality of arms was not respected. The fact that the decision of the first-instance court could be appealed against did not have the potential to remedy the defect in the first-instance proceedings. The extension order of 28 January 2021 became effective immediately. Therefore, even if the appellate court had ultimately reversed the first-instance decision, by that time the applicant would already have spent more than 90 days in the Forensic Psychiatric and Mental Institution subject to interim compulsory treatment. Given that lapse of time, the opportunity to challenge the prosecutor’s application before the Budapest High Court could not remedy the defects of the proceedings before the Pest Central District Court (compare Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, § 90, 25 October 2007).
14. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
- Alleged lack of a speedy judicial review
15. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint that the Budapest High Court had not decided on his appeal in a speedy manner is not manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
16. The general principles concerning the requirement of “speediness” in the context of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention have been summarised, inter alia, in Ilnseher v. Germany ([GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 251-56, 4 December 2018).
17. The Court has laid down relatively strict standards in its case‑law concerning the question of State compliance with the speediness requirement. An analysis of its case-law reveals that in appeal proceedings which follow a detention order imposed by a court at first instance, delays exceeding three to four weeks for which the authorities must be held responsible are liable to raise an issue under the speediness requirement of Article 5 § 4 unless a longer period of review was exceptionally justified in the circumstances of the case (Ilnseher, cited above, § 256, with further references). The Court has found, for instance, that the following time frames for an appellate court to examine an appeal were incompatible with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention: 45 days in Piotr Baranowski v. Poland (no. 39742/05, §§ 67-68, 2 October 2007); and 36, 29 and 26 days in Mamedova v. Russia (no. 7064/05, §§ 96‑97, 1 June 2006).
18. In the present case, the parties disagreed on when the applicant had lodged the appeal (see paragraph 5 above). The Court notes that even if it takes into consideration the later date suggested by the Government, it took 76 days to examine the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance decision (from 12 February 2021 to 30 April 2021). The Government have not submitted any arguments justifying that time frame, particularly the period between 1 March 2021, when the appeal was transferred to the Budapest High Court, and 26 April 2021, when it was registered there (see paragraph 6 above). Nothing suggests that the applicant, having lodged the appeal, subsequently caused delays in its examination. The Court considers that the period in question cannot be considered compatible with the “speediness” requirement of Article 5 § 4, especially taking into account that the entire length of that period was attributable to the authorities.
19. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. In his application form, the applicant requested that “reasonable procedural costs and damages” be awarded. However, he failed to submit a claim in respect of just satisfaction when invited to do so, after notice of the application had been given to the Government. Under Rule 60 § 2 of the Rules of Court, an applicant must submit itemised particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, within the time-limit fixed for the submission of the applicant’s observations on the merits (see also Abdi Ibrahim v. Norway [GC], no. 15379/16, § 167, 10 December 2021). While the Court has the power to afford just satisfaction even in the absence of a properly submitted claim, this applies only in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and in exceptional circumstances (see Nagmetov v. Russia [GC], no. 35589/08, §§ 74-82, 30 March 2017). The Court discerns no exceptional circumstances which could require it to make an award in respect of non‑pecuniary damage in the present case. It therefore makes no award under Article 41.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of a breach of the right to adversarial proceedings;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention on account of the lack of speediness of the review of the lawfulness of the detention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2026, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Dorothee von Arnim Péter Paczolay
Deputy Registrar President