BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
European Court of Human Rights |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> LEHEL v Hungary - 8185/05 [2008] ECHR 1052 (16 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1052.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1052 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
8185/05
by Róbert LEHEL
against Hungary
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section),
sitting on
16 September 2008 as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Antonella
Mularoni,
Ireneu
Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 January 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Róbert Lehel, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Üröm. He is represented before the Court by Ms Sz. Gabos, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The respondent Government are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 September 1997 the applicant was arrested on the charge of having stolen a car. He was in pre-trial detention until 25 November 1997.
On 23 January 2002 a bill of indictment was preferred. The applicant was charged with having trafficked in stolen goods.
After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 10 September 2007 the Buda Surroundings District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, the execution being suspended for a probationary period of two years.
On appeal, on 15 April 2008 the Pest County Regional Court re-characterised the applicant’s offence as complicity, an offence punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment. The court appreciated the long time which had elapsed since the commission of the offence as an important mitigating factor and decided to dispense with imposing a punishment. Instead, it formally reprimanded the applicant.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained of the protraction of the proceedings. He invoked Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court considers that the application falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 alone which reads as relevant:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Government argued that the applicant could not claim to be a victim of a violation of Convention rights, since the domestic courts had expressly acknowledged that the proceedings had been unusually long and taken this into account as a mitigating factor. The applicant contested this view.
The
Court observes that the Regional Court held that the duration of the
proceedings had been excessive and declared that the excessive lapse
of time since the offence had been committed was an important
mitigating factor. As a consequence, it did not impose a punishment
on the applicant
– who was convicted of an offence
punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment – but
issued only a reprimand. Against this background, the Court is
satisfied that the applicant obtained adequate redress for the
alleged violation of his right under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention to the determination within a reasonable time of the
criminal charges against him. Accordingly, he can no longer claim to
be a victim, for the purposes of Article 34, of a violation of
Article 6 § 1. The application is therefore manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be
rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention (see
Morby v. Luxembourg (dec.), no. 27156/02, ECHR 2003-XI;
Lie and Bernsten (dec.), no. 25130/94; Tamás
Kovács v. Hungary, no. 67660/01, § 26, 28
September 2004).
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise
Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President