issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 084 (2013)
19.03.2013
Judgments concerning Hungary, Romania and Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following four
Chamber judgments1, none of which is final. The judgments in French are indicated with
an asterisk (*).
X.Y. v. Hungary (application no. 43888/08)
The applicant, X.Y., is a Hungarian national who was born in 1976 and lives in Budapest.
He was arrested in November 2007 on charges of a series of car thefts and placed in
detention on remand. He was released in May 2008 under house arrest. All restrictions
on his liberty were lifted in November 2009. The proceedings against him are currently
still pending. Relying in particular on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the
European Convention on Human Rights, he alleged that his pre-trial detention from 18
February to 11 March 2008 had been unlawful on account of a typing error in an order to
extend his detention. Further relying on Article 5 § 3 (entitlement to trial within a
reasonable time or to release pending trial), he also alleged that the length of his pre-
trial detention had been excessive, and in particular that the decisions to extend his
detention had not taken into account a deterioration in his psychological health. Lastly,
he alleged under Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by
a court) that the proceedings in which he had challenged his continued detention had
been unfair, as he had not had access to relevant documents in his case file.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Violation of Article 5 § 3
Violation of Article 5 § 4
Just satisfaction: EUR 18,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage), and EUR 4,500
(costs and expenses)
Blejuşcă v. Romania (no. 7910/10)
The applicant, Maxim Silvanus Blejuşcă, is a Romanian national who was born in 1971
and is serving a four-and-half-year sentence in Timişoara Prison (Romania) for robbery.
The case concerned Mr Blejuşcă’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in
Timişoara Prison, notably on account of overcrowding and poor hygiene. He relied on
Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention.
Violation of Article 3 (conditions of detention)
Just satisfaction: EUR 6,600 (non-pecuniary damage)
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month
period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber
of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:
