Case of European Court of Human Rights, October 31, 2019 (case HADOBÁS v. HUNGARY)

Defense:HUNGARY
Resolution Date:October 31, 2019
SUMMARY

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

 
FREE EXCERPT

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF HADOBÁS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 21724/19)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

31 October 2019

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

In the case of Hadobás v. Hungary,

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

Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,Georges Ravarani,Jolien Schukking, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2019,

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

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in an application against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 11 April 2019.

  2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

    THE FACTS

  3. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

  4. The applicant complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings.

    THE LAW

  5. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

    Article 6 § 1

    “In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

  6. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999‑II, and Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII).

  7. In the leading case of Barta and Drajkó v. Hungary, no. 35729/12, 17 December 2013, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

  8. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion as to the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL