CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 23 juin 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s28BDCFEA { width:6.53pt; display:inline-block } .sF7ECFE89 { width:209.1pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 944/12 Gábor CSORBA against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 23   June 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   András Sajó,   Robert Spano, judges and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar . Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Gábor Csorba, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Biatorbágy. He was represented before the Court by Mr   L. Grespik, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 8 February 2005 the applicant was charged with drunken driving. A bill of indictment was issued on 2 January 2006. After several hearings, the Budaörs District Court imposed on the applicant a penalty of four-month imprisonment suspended for one year. The court took into consideration the length, as a mitigating factor. The judgment was delivered on 2 July 2009. On appeal, the second-instance court quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court. In the resumed proceedings, the court mitigated the punishment expressly on account of the protraction of the case and only fined the applicant, a recidivist, for an amount of approximately 600 euros, on 22   June 2011. Since no appeal was lodged, the decision became final. During the proceedings, the applicant failed to appear before the court on several occasions, thus repeated arrest warrants had to be issued against him. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the allegedly unjustified length of the criminal proceedings. THE LAW The Court observes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 8 February 2005 and ended on 22 June 2011. It thus lasted six years and four months for two levels of jurisdiction. The Court observes that the Budaörs District Court acknowledged the unreasonable length of the proceedings – which was partly attributable to the applicant, since he had not fully cooperated with the authorities during the proceedings in failing to appear before the court on several occasions – and, as a consequence, significantly mitigated the sanction, only applying a fine. The domestic authorities acknowledging the violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and providing adequate redress, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim as required by Article   34 of the Convention ( Eckle v. Germany , 15 July 1982, § 66, Series A no. 51). Accordingly, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 July 2015.   Abel Campos   Helen Keller   Deputy Registrar   President