Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) of Court (Second Section Committee), May 26, 2015 (case CASE OF BERKI v. HUNGARY)

Judge:KIRALY E.
Defense:HUNGARY
Resolution Date:May 26, 2015
Issuing Organization:Court (Second Section Committee)

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF BERKI v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 31162/09)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

26 May 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Berki v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

             Helen Keller, President,              András Sajó,              Robert Spano, judges,

and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 21 April 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application (no. 31162/09) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Hungarian national, Mr Gábor Berki (“the applicant”), on 9 June 2009.

  2. The applicant was represented by Ms E. Király, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice.

  3. On 13 November 2014 the complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.

    THE FACTS

    THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

  4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Budapest.

  5. On 30 March 2004 the applicant was detained on suspicion of misuse of illegal pornographic material.

  6. In the ensuing criminal proceedings, the Budapest IV/XV District Court acquitted the applicant on 9 April 2008, after holding three hearings.

  7. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court upheld the acquittal on 17 March 2009.

    THE LAW

  8. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

  9. The Government contested that argument.

  10. The period to be taken into consideration began on 30 March 2004 and ended on 17 March 2009. It thus lasted about four years and eleven months for two levels of jurisdiction.

    In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.

  11. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present application (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II).

  12. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing...

To continue reading

Request your trial