CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2019

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 39854/14 Michael James TURNER against Hungary (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   May 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 May 2014, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr G. Thuan Dit Dieudonné, a lawyer practising in Strasbourg. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised another complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW A.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable for the protraction of the criminal proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the domestic authorities acknowledged the undue length of the proceedings and provided adequate redress as they took this element into account, when sentencing the applicant, as an important mitigating factor. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. B.     Remaining complaints The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 §   3 (a) of the Convention. It follows that he has no “arguable claim” of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provision of the Convention within the meaning of Article   35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35   §   4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth Representative’s name and location Start of proceedings End of proceedings Total length Levels of jurisdiction Other complaints under well-established case-law 39854/14 23/05/2014 Michael James Turner 06/01/1982 Thuan Dit Dieudonné, Grégory Strasbourg 02/11/2009   25/11/2013   4 year(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings -