CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 8 November 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40044/18 András LESZKÓ against Hungary lodged on 17 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the fairness of criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant. A second-instance bench quashed the first-instance judgment, remitted the case and gave guidance to the lower court on how to handle the case in the proceedings to be resumed. Subsequently, the same second-instance bench dealt with the appeal phase in the resumed proceedings. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Castillo Algar v. Spain , 28 October 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ VIII; San Leonard Band Club v. Malta , no.   77562/01, ECHR 2004 ‑ IX; and Oberschlick v. Austria (no. 1) , 23 May 1991, Series A no. 204)?