SECOND SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 9295/04
by Csaba CSORBA
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
31 May 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 January 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Csaba Csorba, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1958 and lives in Miskolc.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 August 2000 the applicant, a bank employee, was charged with having made fraudulent loans and heard as a suspect by the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén Police Headquarters.
On 12 October 2000 the applicant was heard again.
On 23 August 2001 the Miskolc Town Prosecutor’s Office replaced the original charges with the offence of obtaining unlawful financial advantages (jogtalan gazdasági előny megszerzése). The bill of indictment reached the Miskolc District Court on 10 October 2001.
On 8 October 2002 the Miskolc District Court, after holding six hearings, terminated the criminal proceedings against the applicant and issued a reprimand (megrovás). The applicant appealed.
On 3 June 2003 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
On 27 May 2005 the District Court, after holding seven hearings, found the applicant guilty as charged and fined him 128,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 520 euros). The applicant appealed.
On 10 May 2006 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court, after holding two hearings, finally acquitted the applicant.
Meanwhile, in May 2002 the applicant requested the Ministry of the Interior to issue him with a new passport since his old one had expired. On 4 December 2002, in view of the pending criminal proceedings, he obtained a provisional passport, valid worldwide, with an expiry date of 31 December 2003. On 27 November 2003 he was informed that his provisional passport could be used without any further time-limit.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against him lasted an unreasonably long time, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
2. Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to freedom of movement was violated because he was only issued with a provisional passport.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains about the length of the proceedings under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. Under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicant complains that his right to freedom of movement was violated by the issue of a mere provisional passport. Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 reads as relevant:
“2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.
3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society ... for the prevention of crime...”
It is to be noted that the applicant obtained a provisional passport because he was the subject of criminal proceedings. This restriction ended within a year and he was officially informed that his provisional passport could be used without any further time-limit. Therefore, it cannot be argued that the restriction was disproportionate to the aim of the prevention of crime within the meaning of Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4. It follows that this complaint is to be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the criminal proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy