SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36241/07
György Sándor MEZŐ
against Austria and Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Dragoljub Popović,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
András Sajó,
Guido Raimondi,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 August 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr György Sándor Mező, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1963. Currently, he is detained at Szeged Prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 June 2003 the Austrian Vienna Court of Appeal finally convicted the applicant, a Hungarian citizen, of two counts of aggravated murder and robbery for having strangled and robbed two of his homosexual partners. It sentenced him to life imprisonment, with the earliest release on parole after 15 years, and to a ban from Austrian territory. The ban entailed that the applicant could involuntarily be transferred to Hungary for the execution of his sentence.
On 8 June 2006 the applicant was surrendered by the Austrian authorities to their Hungarian counterpart.
On 26 January 2006 the Hungarian Budapest Regional Court established that the legal conditions for executing the sentence in a Hungarian prison were indeed met. On 26 July 2006 it converted the applicant’s sentence into life imprisonment under Hungarian law, with the earliest release on parole after 30 years. On 3 August 2006 the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this ruling (service: 10 August 2006).
COMPLAINTS
Relying on several provisions of the Convention, the applicant complains against Austria about his transfer and against Hungary about the conversion of his sentence.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant was surrendered by the Austrian authorities on 8 June 2006. Moreover, in Hungary, the final domestic decision was given by the Budapest Court of Appeal on 3 August 2006. However, the application was lodged only on 14 August 2007, i.e. more than six months later than either of these dates.
It follows that the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court by a majority
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stanley NaismithFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy