5.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Budaörs. 6.  On 29 August 2011 the representative of a limited liability company lodged a criminal complaint against unknown persons for having allegedly stolen goods belonging to the company worth 11,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 34,400 euros (EUR)). 7.  In connection with the criminal complaint, investigations were opened in respect of two individuals on suspicion of forgery of public documents and aggravated fraud. 8.  On 1 June 2012 the Tatabánya Police Department issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant in connection with the ongoing criminal proceedings, since the applicant was unreachable at his permanent address.
Apparently, at the time the arrest warrant was issued the applicant had a lawyer appointed for him, as required by Article 527 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9.  On 8 June 2012 the applicant voluntarily appeared at Jászfényszaru police station, where he was questioned as a suspect on charges of aggravated fraud. He was suspected of having been hired as a part-time truck driver by a transport company, and instead of transferring the goods to their assigned destination, he had left them at an unidentified location. The applicant gave a detailed account of events, substantiated by information from his mobile telephone. His lawyer also submitted that although the applicant had gone abroad several times for short periods that had been solely because of his work as a truck driver. He had had no intention to circumvent the investigations and had resided at the same address for years. 10.  The applicant was placed in police custody on the same day on the grounds that a warrant had been issued for his arrest. He complained against the measure, arguing that he had not been present at his permanent address as he worked as a truck driver abroad. He also stated that he had steady employment and a permanent address, that the alleged offence of which he was suspected was of a minor nature, that he had voluntarily appeared before the investigation authorities, and that he had given a detailed account of events. Therefore, there were no grounds to believe that he would abscond or commit any other crime. He also maintained that the only evidence against him was that his personal details had allegedly been registered erroneously by the company where he had been employed as a driver.
The complaint was dismissed by the Tatabánya district prosecutor’s office on 14 June 2012.
In those and the ensuing proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his choice. 11.  On 8 June 2012 the Tatabánya Police department filed an application with the head of the Tatabánya District Prosecutor’s Office seeking the applicant’s placement in pre-trial detention. The application specified that the applicant had submitted false personal information (name and ID card number) when receiving the goods, which were supposed to be transported by the applicant to a specific place but had gone missing following their hand-over. 12.  The Komárom-Esztergom County public prosecutor’s office applied for the applicant’s pre-trial detention on the same day. It argued that the applicant was suspected of committing aggravated fraud as he had been the driver of the truck containing the missing goods and had used false information to identify himself when the goods in question had been handed over to him. Furthermore, he had been arrested under a warrant because he had been unreachable at his domicile. Further investigative steps were also necessary and there was a risk that he would obstruct the gathering of evidence by influencing witnesses or that he would abscond. 13.  On 9 June 2012 the Tatabánya District Court held a detention hearing. The application of the public prosecutor’s office was presented to the applicant’s lawyer orally during the hearing. The court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand until 9 July 2012 under Article 129 § 2 (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the court’s reasoning, the applicant, in cooperation with another suspect, had transferred the missing goods to an unidentified location and had submitted false information about his identity. Referring to the arrest warrant, the court also held that there were grounds to believe that the applicant would abscond, obstruct the investigations or commit further offences. It further stated, without any additional reasoning, that less restrictive measures could not be applied. 14.  The applicant appealed, arguing that the conditions for pre-trial detention had not been fulfilled because there was neither a well-founded suspicion that he had committed a criminal act nor any risk of his absconding or colluding with others. He reiterated that he had voluntarily cooperated with the police, both as regards his arrest and the giving of evidence. Furthermore, his personal circumstances, that is, the fact that his mother and brother were ill, his permanent employment and residence, which had been the same for forty years, also excluded the risk of his absconding. He further submitted that he had not been informed of any evidence justifying his detention on remand. Alternatively, the applicant requested his release and that he be placed under house arrest or under an obligation not to leave a certain area. 15.  The first-instance decision was upheld on appeal, without further reasoning, by the Tatabánya High Court on 14 June 2012. 16.  On 3 July 2012, on the application of the public prosecutor’s office, the applicant’s detention was extended until 9 September 2012 by the District Court. The court found that there remained a well-founded suspicion that the applicant had committed aggravated fraud. Furthermore, the risk of his absconding remained since the applicant had been arrested under a warrant. Finally, there was a risk of collusion given the ongoing investigations and the need to question further witnesses, and the applicant’s denial of the offence. The application of the prosecutor’s office for a prolongation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention, dated 2 July 2012, was served on the applicant following the first-instance decision. 17.  The first-instance decision was upheld on appeal on 20 July 2012 by the Tatabánya High Court, without further reasoning. 18.  In parallel, on 2 July 2012 the applicant applied for release from pre-trial detention or, alternatively, to be placed under house arrest or under an obligation not to leave a certain area. He reiterated that he had no criminal record, gave financial assistance to his elderly parents and his brother, who had Down syndrome and with whom he also shared a house, had a permanent job and that his residence had not changed for forty years. He also submitted that he had voluntarily cooperated with the police giving a detailed account of the events and handling over documentary evidence in his possession. He further pointed out that the evidence obtained by the police supported his version of the events, thus there were no grounds to believe that he would have obstructed the investigations.
A request by the prosecutor’s office, dated 5 July 2012, seeking the maintenance of the coercive measure was not served on the applicant at all. 19.  The applicant’s application for release was dismissed by the District Court on 9 July 2012. It reiterated in essence the same reasoning as in its decision of 3 July 2012 without any consideration for the application of a less restrictive measure. On appeal, on 9 August 2012, the Tatabánya High Court partly upheld the applicant’s appeal, finding that there was no risk of his absconding owing to his personal circumstances, namely his mother’s fragile health and his brother’s illness, and the fact that he had voluntarily appeared before the police following the issuing of the arrest warrant. Nonetheless, the High Court upheld the first-instance decision to prolong the applicant’s pre-trial detention owing to a risk of collusion, adding that there were no grounds for choosing another, less restrictive, preventive measure. 20.  On 28 August 2012 the investigation was closed and the case file was presented to the defence. 21.  On 7 September 2012 the prosecutor’s office released the applicant from pre-trial detention on the grounds that no specific reason (such as a risk of collusion) existed for his further detention. 22.  On 25 June 2015 the Tatabánya District Court acquitted the applicant. 23.  The applicant was detained in Székesfehérvár Prison from 9 June to 7 September 2012. During that time he was held in a cell measuring 41.09 sq. m with eighteen sleeping places. On 31 July 2012 there were eight inmates (5.1 sq. m per person); on 9 June, between 26 June and 2 July, 1 and 10 August and 26 August and 7 September 2012 there were nine inmates (4.5 sq. m per person); between 10 and 11 June and 3 and 6 July 2012 there were ten inmates (4.1 sq. m per person); between 12 and 21 June, 20 and 30 July and 11 and 25 August 2012 there were eleven inmates (3.7 sq. m per person); between 22 and 25 June and between 7 and 15 July 2012 there were twelve inmates (3.4 sq. m per person); and between 15 and 20 July 2012 there were thirteen inmates (3.1 sq. m per person). During the summer, the temperature in the prison cell rose to 30˚C during the day time, occasionally reaching 35˚C. The cell was equipped with a separate toilet. The applicant could only leave the cell for one hour of outdoor exercise every day. Inmates were able to take a shower once a week for about five to ten minutes.