FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48899/20
Zoltán József KORDÉ
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20 May 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Péter Paczolay,
Gilberto Felici, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 October 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 D. Kiss, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
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”). Complaints based on the same facts were 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, the present complaint is inadmissible.
In particular, the Court notes that the domestic authorities took into account, as an important mitigating factor, the length of the proceedings, when sentencing the applicant. In any event, even assuming that the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the case lasted about five years for three levels of jurisdiction, which cannot be considered excessive.
In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.Remaining complaints
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 applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Hence, he has no “arguable claim” of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions 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,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 June 2021. {signature_p_2}
Viktoriya MaradudinaAlena Poláčková
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
48899/20
21/10/2020
Zoltán József KORDÉ
1973
Kiss Dániel Bálint
Budapest
17/12/2015
13/01/2021
5 year(s) and 28 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction
Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy