FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17382/20
László JÁNOSI
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 20 March 2020,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr A.Z. Kecskés, a lawyer practising in Hódmezővásárhely.
The applicant’s 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 recognised the undue length of the trial and took this element into account as an important mitigating factor at both first and second instance. Namely, the domestic courts sentenced the applicant, prosecuted for tax fraud and other offences, only to a fine and ineligibility as manager. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the violation of the applicant’s Convention rights has been expressly acknowledged and adequately redressed. Consequently, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention.
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 complaint
The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of any effective remedy for his 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
Applicant’s name
Year 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
17382/20
20/03/2020
László JÁNOSI
1961
Kecskés Ákos Zoltán
Hódmezővásárhely
29/08/2011
08/06/2020
8 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 11 day(s)
2 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law against the protraction of the criminal proceedings.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy