CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s876D4AB2 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)72 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Csikós against Hungary   (Application No. 37251/04, judgment of 05/12/2006, final on 05/03/2007)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the violation of the right to fair trial on account of a decision to increase the applicant’s sentence at an appeal hearing in the absence of the applicant and his lawyer (violation of Articles 6§1 and 6§3(c)) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Hungary’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)72   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of Csikós against Hungary     Introductory case summary   This case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial and of his right to defend himself due to a judgment confirming his conviction and increasing his sentence to four years’ imprisonment (from 3½ years’   handed down on 13/10/2003) by the Heves County Regional Court in a closed session and in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer (violation of Articles 6§1 and 6§3(c)).   The Court found that, having regard to the right to a fair trial, the applicant’s sentence should not have been increased without his or his lawyer’s presence at the appeal hearing.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total - - 1 415 EUR 1 415 EUR Paid on 24/04/2007   b) Individual measures   The Court recalled its case-law to the effect that where an individual has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention’s requirement of fairness, a retrial, reopening or review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.   According to the information provided by the Hungarian authorities, the present case was re-opened before the Eger District Court.     II.   General measures   The Court noted that on 26/05/2005 the Constitutional Court annulled section   360(1) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, which contained the legal provision permitting in camera sessions to be held on appeal.   The new provision which replaced Section 360(1), entered into force on 01/04/2006 (Act No.951 of 2006). This provision specifies cases in which in camera sessions may be held. The authorities stated that if a sentence is to be made more severe at appeal, a public session or hearing must be held. The attendance of the accused and his defence counsel is guaranteed at such public session or hearing.   The Court’s judgment has been published on the website of the Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement ( www.irm.gov.hu ).     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken will prevent new, similar violations and that Hungary has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies