CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 29 September 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61115/15 Ferenc BALOGH against Hungary lodged on 3 December 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(d), the applicant complains about the fairness of his conviction for violence against officials. It appears that he and his companions were involved in a fight in a pub with other customers, and when the police arrived, the officers also become involved in the melee and had injuries. In the ensuing criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant, the public prosecutor, in the exclusive company of the two injured police officers, attempted to watch the pub’s video footage of the incident, but found that it was technically impossible, so decided to have it destroyed. Consequently, this piece of evidence became entirely unavailable for the defence. On 4 June 2015 the Nyíregyháza High Court finally sentenced the applicant to 2.5 years of prison, relying only on witness testimonies and forensic medical opinion. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, given that an apparently important piece of evidence was discarded without the defence being given an opportunity to access it?