CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 août 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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD8BF637E { margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 76962/16 Miklós BÍRÓ against Hungary and 6 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   August 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, except for the applicant in application no. 76962/16, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of criminal proceedings were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article 13 of the Convention. THE LAW Joinder of the applications Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) In the present applications, 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 length of proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the domestic courts expressly acknowledged the protraction of the proceedings and provided adequate redress by taking this circumstance into account as an important mitigating factor when assessing and fixing the criminal sanctions. It follows that the applicants cannot claim to be victims of a violation of their Convention rights for the purposes of Article 34. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. Remaining complaints Some applicants also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. The Court observes that the applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 §   3 of the Convention. It follows that they have no “arguable claim” of a violation of their rights under Article 6 § 1 for the purposes of Article 13 of the Convention. It follows that this part of the applications 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, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 September 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (excessive length of criminal proceedings) No. 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     76962/16 05/12/2016 Miklós Bíró 26/05/1970 Takács Andrea Kaposvár 17/12/2012   22/05/2017   4 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 6 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction         32382/18 04/07/2018 Péter Szabó 06/01/1977 Földvári Csaba Hódmezővásárhely 08/08/2008   10/10/2018   10 year(s) and 2 month(s) and 3 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction         35006/18 19/07/2018 Ilona Zita Árva 18/07/1972 Tóth T. Balázs Budapest 05/06/2012   28/02/2018   5 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 24 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.     42280/18 28/08/2018 Miklósné Szemere 22/06/1945 Tóth T. Balázs Budapest 17/02/2009   28/02/2018   9 year(s) and 12 day(s) 2   level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.     42282/18 28/08/2018 Miklós Károly Tölgyesi 17/03/1955 Tóth T. Balázs Budapest 06/02/2009   28/02/2018   9 year(s) and 23 day(s) 2   level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.     42284/18 28/08/2018 Pál Orbán 18/06/1947 Tóth T. Balázs Budapest 21/01/2009   28/02/2018   9 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 8 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law as regards the protraction of the criminal proceedings.     42867/18 29/08/2018 Csaba Bozó 08/04/1973 Bene Zoltán Szeged 21/08/2008   10/10/2018   10 year(s) and 1 month(s) and 20 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction