CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 mars 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sFCBFF887 { width:236.48pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 66597/01 by Gyula KOCSIS against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 4   March 2003 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   Gaukur Jörundsson ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges ,   and   Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 May 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Gyula Kocsis, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1914 and lives in Erdőbénye, Hungary. He is represented before the Court by Ms Lakatos, a lawyer practising in Miskolc, Hungary. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant, charged with murder, was in pre-trial detention from 29   December 1990 until 15 February 1991. On 22 July 1991 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Public Prosecutor’s Office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. On 29 January 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking compensation for damages which had arisen on account of his unjustified detention according to section 383 § 1 of the Code on Criminal Procedure. At a later date, the applicant extended his action claiming 1,000,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On 11 March 1994 the Miskolc District Court awarded the applicant HUF 40,750 as compensation for his detention and transferred his claims for non-pecuniary damage to a civil court. On 5 July 1994 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court, holding that the District Court had not proceeded according to the law. In the resumed proceedings, the Miskolc District Court, on 24 June 1996, dismissed the applicant’s action. On 26 September 1996 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 13 January 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s petition for review. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that he was not awarded compensation for his unjustified detention and under Article 6 § 1 about the length of the compensation proceedings. THE LAW 1. As regards the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, the Court observes that his pre-trial detention took place between 20 December 1990 and 15 February 1991. However, the Convention’s entry into force with respect to Hungary occurred on 5   November 1992. This complaint must therefore be declared inadmissible as falling outside the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis . 2. As regards the length of the proceedings for compensation under section 383 § 1 of the Code on Criminal Procedure, the applicant alleges a violation of the reasonable time requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings for compensation; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President