SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29273/14
Attila RESS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Helen Keller, President,
András Sajó,
Robert Spano, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2014,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Attila Ress, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Szada. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Grád, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 October 2010 the applicant was charged with money forgery and placed in pre-trial detention. Despite several appeals, his pre-trial detention was maintained until 29 April 2013. On that date, it was replaced with a less stringent measure, notably by prohibition to leave his village of residence. The latter measure was raised on 14 February 2014.
The applicant submitted that he had been unable to lodge his complaint within the six-month time-limit counted from 29 April 2013, because there was no lawyer in his village of residence.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention about the allegedly unjustified length of his pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the application was submitted on 2 April 2014, that is, outside the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention; to be counted in the present case from the end of the pre-trial detention on 29 April 2013.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of the six-month rule is to promote legal certainty and to ensure that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with within a reasonable time, as well as to protect the authorities and other persons concerned from being under uncertainty for an extended period of time. Finally, it should ensure that the facts of the case are ascertained as promptly as possible, before the chance to do so fades away, making a fair examination of the question at issue next to impossible (see, for example, Lučić v. Croatia, no. 5699/11, § 64, 27 February 2014). Nevertheless, there may exist specific circumstances which might prevent an applicant from observing the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and such circumstances are relevant factors for the Court’s examination (see Benzer and Others v. Turkey, no. 23502/06, § 124, 12 November 2013).
The Court further observes that applicants are not required by the Convention to have recourse to a lawyer when lodging a complaint with the Court. Rule 36 of the Rules of Court provides:
“Persons ... may initially present applications under Article 34 of the Convention themselves ... [It is only] following notification of the application to the respondent Contracting Party [that] the applicant should be represented ... unless the President of the Chamber decides otherwise”.
Therefore, the applicant’s submission about his alleged inability to lodge his complaint within the six-month time-limit for want of access to a lawyer is unfounded. The Court also notes that, in any event, the prohibition on the applicant to leave his village would not have hindered him in consulting a lawyer via telephone or mail, or organising a meeting at his residence. Thus, the Court is satisfied that there were no specific circumstances in the applicant’s case which had prevented him from observing the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
It follows that the application must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Abel CamposHelen Keller
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy