CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 mai 2020

.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 } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C144E8F { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5442DDD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sD407E162 { width:116.42pt; display:inline-block } .s67CC2216 { width:138.53pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sA68E35A7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 51378/19 István ILLÉS against Hungary (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28   May 2020 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 application lodged on 26   September 2019, 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 K. Cseterics, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 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 LAW 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 proceedings. In particular, the Court notes that the domestic courts expressly recognised the undue length of the trial and provided adequate redress by appreciating this element as an important mitigating factor when sentencing the applicant to only one year and six months’ prison, execution suspended for two years, although he was prosecuted for fraud and theft, offences carrying potential sentences of up to three years of imprisonment. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the violation of the applicant’s Convention rights has been expressly acknowledged and redressed. Consequently, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. In view of the above, the Court finds that these complaints are incompatible ratione personae with the provision of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 18 June 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström 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 51378/19 26/09/2019 István ILLÉS 21/11/1966 Cseterics Krisztián Budapest 21/07/2010   05/11/2019   9 year(s) and 3 month(s) and 16 day(s) 2 level(s) of jurisdiction