Case of European Court of Human Rights, October 22, 2020 (case KISHÁZI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY)

Defense:HUNGARY
Resolution Date:October 22, 2020
SUMMARY

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

 
FREE EXCERPT

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF KISHÁZI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application nos. 28814/19 and 2 others - see appended list)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

22 October 2020

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

In the case of Kisházi and Others 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 29 September 2020,

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

PROCEDURE

  1. The case originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

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

    THE FACTS

  3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

  4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. In applications nos. 28814/19 and 32428/19, the applicants also raised complaints under Article 13 of the Convention.

    THE LAW

  5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

  6. The applicants complained principally that the length of the criminal proceedings in question had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. They 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...”

  7. 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 applicants and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicants 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).

  8. 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.

  9. ...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL