FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 76962/16
Miklós BÍRÓ against Hungary
and 6 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 August 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Jolien Schukking, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 76962/16,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
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”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention.
THE LAWJoinder of the applications
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings)
In the present applications, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the length of proceedings.
In particular, the Court notes that the domestic courts expressly acknowledged the protraction of the proceedings and provided adequate redress by taking this circumstance into account as an important mitigating factor when assessing and fixing the criminal sanctions. It follows that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of a violation of their Convention rights for the purposes of Article 34.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are 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 complaints
Some applicants also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It follows that they have no “arguable claim” of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the applications is incompatible ratione materiae with the provision of the Convention 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,
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 2019.
Liv TigerstedtStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(excessive length of criminal proceedings)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Start of proceedings
End of proceedings
Total length
Levels of jurisdiction
Other complaints under well-established case-law
76962/16
05/12/2016
Miklós Bíró
26/05/1970
Takács Andrea
Kaposvár
17/12/2012
22/05/2017
4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
32382/18
04/07/2018
Péter Szabó
06/01/1977
Földvári Csaba
Hódmezővásárhely
08/08/2008
10/10/2018
10 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
35006/18
19/07/2018
Ilona Zita Árva
18/07/1972
Tóth T. Balázs
Budapest
05/06/2012
28/02/2018
5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
42280/18
28/08/2018
Miklósné Szemere
22/06/1945
Tóth T. Balázs
Budapest
17/02/2009
28/02/2018
9 year(s) and 12 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
42282/18
28/08/2018
Miklós Károly Tölgyesi
17/03/1955
Tóth T. Balázs
Budapest
06/02/2009
28/02/2018
9 year(s) and 23 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
42284/18
28/08/2018
Pál Orbán
18/06/1947
Tóth T. Balázs
Budapest
21/01/2009
28/02/2018
9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
42867/18
29/08/2018
Csaba Bozó
08/04/1973
Bene Zoltán
Szeged
21/08/2008
10/10/2018
10 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy