CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 février 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } SECOND SECTION Application no. 44473/06 Marianne HÁBENCZIUS against Hungary lodged on 18 October 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Ms Marianne Hábenczius, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Budapest. She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Róth, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. At the material time, the applicant lived in the United States. On 14   January 2001 she arrived in Hungary on a visit. She had a laptop with her which she did not declare to the airport customs, since it constituted a ‘travel item’, exempted from customs duty, within the meaning of section   110 of Act no. C of 1995 and section 185(3) of the implementing Decree of the Act. Although she specified to the authorities that she was living abroad and had no intention of importing the laptop into Hungary but intended to take it back with her to the United States on departure, the customs authority nevertheless seized the laptop and filed a criminal report, charging the applicant with smuggling. A bill of indictment was preferred by the Budapest X/XVII District Public Prosecutor’s Office on 28 April 2001. On 9 May 2001 the Pest Central District Court, without holding a hearing, found the applicant guilty as charged, imposed a fine and ordered the release of the laptop on the payment of another 100,000 Hungarian forints as ‘value equivalent to confiscation’ ( elkobzás alá eső érték ). On 23 June 2001 the applicant appealed, seeking her acquittal. No hearing took place subsequently; and the laptop remained in seizure. On 24 April 2006 the District Court found that the case was statute-barred and discontinued the proceedings (B.XVII.1810/2001/5). It ordered the release of the laptop. This decision became final on 2 June 2006. On 28 June 2006 the customs authority invited the applicant to recover the laptop. The applicant submits that during these proceedings she moved back to Hungary. On her repatriation, she could have imported her belongings, including the laptop, free of customs. However, its release was in these circumstances nevertheless subject to the payment of customs duty. Since the laptop had meanwhile become technically outdated and thus worthless, she decided to have it returned to the United States rather than recovering it. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the protraction of the proceedings. Moreover, under Article 1 of Protocol No .1, she complains that her laptop was for five years in unjustified seizure and eventually lost its value. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant been deprived of her possessions in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? Did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant (see Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy, [GC], no. 22774/93, § 59, ECHR 1999-V), given that for almost five years no action was taken in the case by the authorities and during this time the property in question lost its value?