SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 37216/04
by János BÓDI
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
23 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 August 2004,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Hungarian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Budapest. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Kutas, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 21 May 2000 regulatory offence proceedings were instituted against the applicant, because his dog had bitten Mr H. On 7 November 2000 he was fined on account of the regulatory offence of ‘endangering with a dog’ (kutyával való veszélyeztetés). On the applicant’s objection, the case was forwarded to the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court. The court ordered that the principal decision be reviewed. As a result, on 20 March 2001 the court changed the decision and fined the applicant a lesser amount on account of the regulatory offence of having walked his dog without a leash. This decision was declared final on 10 May 2001.
On 14 November 2002 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, in the context of the same incident, for ‘not having assisted the victim’ in respect of the danger caused by him.
Between 9 December 2004 and 17 March 2006, the District Court held five hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert. On that date it acquitted the applicant for want of evidence. The public prosecutor’s office appealed but withdrew its appeal on 30 June 2006.
The applicant’s appeal, pleading the absence of a crime, was dismissed by the Budapest Regional Court on 8 November 2006.
In the meantime, the applicant’s criminal accusations against an interrogator involved in the above proceedings were to no avail and were finally rejected by the Supreme Court on 27 April 2004.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of both proceedings. Moreover, he complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings conducted both against and by him and about the absence of effective remedies in this matter.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government contested that argument.
The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 14 November 2002 and ended on 8 November 2006. It thus lasted somewhat less than four years for two levels of jurisdiction.
The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
In the circumstances, the Court considers that, no particular period of inactivity being imputable to the authorities, the overall length did not exceed “a reasonable time”. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complained of the length of the regulatory offence proceedings. Moreover, relying on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, he complained about the unfairness and the outcome of the proceedings conducted against and by him as well as about the absence of effective remedies in this connection.
The Court observes that any complaints concerning the regulatory offence proceedings concluded in 2001 must be rejected for non-compliance with the six-month rule of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, because the application was only introduced on 2 August 2004, i.e. out of time.
Moreover, the Court notes that, concerning the outcome and the unfairness of the criminal proceedings conducted against him, the applicant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of his Convention rights for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, since he was finally acquitted. This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3.
Lastly, the complaint about the non-pursuit of the applicant’s criminal accusations against a police officer is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention, since it does not guarantee any right to press charges against third persons or have them convicted.
It follows that these complaints must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1, 3 and 4 of the Convention.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
F. Elens-PassosF. Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy