CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 20 mai 2021

.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 } .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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; 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 } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s20663E02 { width:10.26pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s241E80BF { width:7.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2CEA1D7 { width:125.74pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF06D3D4E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 48899/20 Zoltán József KORDÉ against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 20   May   2021 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková, President,   Péter Paczolay,   Gilberto Felici, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21   October 2020, 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 D. Kiss, 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”). Complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under Article   13 of the Convention. 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 present complaint is inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the domestic authorities took into account, as an important mitigating factor, the length of the proceedings, when sentencing the applicant. In any event, even assuming that the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the case lasted about five years for three levels of jurisdiction, which cannot be considered excessive. 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. Remaining complaints The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of any effective remedy for his complaints about the length of the proceedings. The Court observes that the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention are inadmissible within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. Hence, 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 provisions 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 10 June 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Viktoriya Maradudina   Alena Poláčková   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 Year 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 48899/20 21/10/2020 Zoltán József KORDÉ 1973 Kiss Dániel Bálint Budapest 17/12/2015   13/01/2021   5 year(s) and 28 day(s) 3 level(s) of jurisdiction   Art. 13 - lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in respect of excessive length of criminal proceedings