FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10868/20
Ferenc BORDÁCS and Others
against Hungary
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 19 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 February 2020,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mr P. Kanyó, a lawyer practising in Nagykáta.
The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). A complaint based on the same facts was also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAWComplaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, these complaints are inadmissible.
In particular, the Court notes that the domestic courts expressly acknowledged the undue length of the proceedings and provided adequate redress by taking this into account as an important mitigating factor when sentencing the applicants, prosecuted for fraud and other offences, to only short and suspended prison terms or a fine.
In view of the above, the Court finds that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Conventions for the purposes of Article 34. These complaints must therefore be declared incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.Remaining complaint
The applicants also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of any effective remedy for their complaints about the length of the proceedings.
The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are inadmissible for loss of victim status since the domestic courts acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights under this provision and adequately redressed them. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the applicants’ complaints under Article 13 are manifestly ill‑founded since their grievances were remedied at the domestic level.
It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020.
Liv TigerstedtKrzysztof Wojtyczek
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicants’ name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
10868/20
21/02/2020
Ferenc BORDÁCS
1968
Miklós GULNER
1976
Zsolt TERJÉK
1971
Kanyó Péter
Nagykáta
01/01/2012
29/08/2019
7 year(s) and 7 month(s) and 29 day(s)
1 level(s) of jurisdiction
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy