Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)295

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Földes and Földesné Hajlik, and Bessenyei against Hungary

(Application No. 41463/02, judgment of 31/10/2006, final on 26/03/2007
Application No. 37509/06, judgment of 21/10/2008, final on 21/09/2009)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the authorities’ failure to ensure that any interference with the right to leave one’s country remains justified and proportionate throughout its duration (violation of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 4) and, in the case of Bessenyei, also the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicants the just satisfaction provided in the judgments (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)295

Information on the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of
Földes and Földesné Hajlik, and Bessenyei against Hungary

Introductory case summaries

The case of Földes and Földesné Hajlik concerns the violation of the freedom of movement of the first applicant, Mr Földes, due to the withdrawal of his passport until the termination of criminal proceedings pending against him for fraudulent bankruptcy. The administrative decision to withdraw the applicant’s passport was taken on 17 January 1994 and upheld on 9 May 1995. The Court found that, as no reassessment of the initial decision had taken place after that date, the travel ban was in reality an automatic, blanket measure of indefinite duration. The Court considered that this ran counter to the authorities’ duty to take appropriate care to ensure that any interference with the right to leave one’s country remains justified and proportionate throughout its duration (violation of Article 2, paragraph 2 of Protocol No. 4).

The Bessenyei case concerns the violation of the applicant’s freedom of movement due to the withdrawal of his passport from 25 June 2001 until 1 July 2003, because criminal charges on forgery of official documents were pending against him. The Court found that since the prohibition to travel remained unchanged for over two years and was terminated following a legislative amendment, the travel ban was in reality an automatic, blanket measure of indefinite duration (violation of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 4). The Court further concluded that the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant had been excessive (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1).

I.	Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

Name and application number	Pecuniary damage	Non-pecuniary damage	Costs and expenses	Total	
Földes and Földesné Hajlik (41463/02)	-	3 000 EUR	-	3 000 EUR
	
Paid on 25/05/2007	
Bessenyei (37509/06)	-	4 000 EUR	-	4 000 EUR
	
Paid on 10/03/2009	

b) Individual measures

The passport of the first applicant in the case of Földes and Földesné Hajlik, which was withdrawn on 17 January 1994, expired on 30 May 1998, thus becoming invalid after this date. The travel ban on the applicant ceased to exist as of 1 July 2003 due to a change in the domestic legislation (see below).

In the case of Bessenyei, the travel ban for the applicant equally ceased to exist as of 1 July 2003 due to a change in the domestic legislation.

II.	General measures

1) Violation of Article 2, paragraph 2, of Protocol No. 4: According to Section 16 subsection (1) a) of Act No. 12 of 1998 on travelling abroad (hereinafter: “Utv.”), persons against whom criminal proceedings were conducted for an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to five years or more were not allowed to travel abroad until the final termination of the criminal proceedings. Section 308 subsection (1) b) of Act No. 1 of 2002 amending Act No. 19 of 1998 on the Code of Criminal Proceedings quashed Section 16 subsection (1) a) of the Utv. with effect from 1 July 2003. Thus the ground upon which the applicants’ travel to abroad had been restricted ceased to exist.

2) Violation of Article 6, paragraph 1: The issue of excessive length of judicial proceedings in Hungary is being examined by the Committee of Ministers in the context of the Tímár group of cases (application No. 36186/97, judgment of 25/02/2003).

3) Publication and dissemination: The Court’s judgment in the case of Földes and Földesné Hajlik was sent out to regional courts and the departments in charge of regulating and supervising the withdrawal of passports within the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.

III.	Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicants of the violations of the Convention found by the European Court in these cases, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.