CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 décembre 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92 December 2006 Csikós v. Hungary - 37251/04 Judgment 5.12.2006 [Section II] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Constitutional complaint not an effective remedy as the impugned criminal appellate proceedings could not be reopened in consequence: preliminary objection dismissed   Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Applicant's sentence increased by an appeal court sitting in camera without his presence or that of his lawyer: violation   Facts : A first-instance court found the applicant guilty of aggravated extortion and sentenced him to three and a half years' imprisonment. He appealed. After deliberations held in camera, in the absence of both the applicant and his lawyer, the conviction was upheld and the sentence increased to four years' imprisonment. The applicant complained that his conviction had been confirmed and the sanction imposed on him increased by the appellate court sitting in camera without his or his lawyer's attendance, in violation of his defence rights guaranteed by Article   6. Law : Preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies dismissed : The Government contended that the applicant should have filed a constitutional complaint under section   48 of the Constitutional Court Act. The Constitutional Court had the power, under section   43(3) of that Act, to order the review of criminal proceedings concluded in application of unconstitutional legal provisions. In addition to establishing a violation of the applicant's rights under the Constitution, that court could have provided him with a remedy leading to complete reparation of the situation caused by the violation, namely, by allowing for the reopening of the case in review proceedings. Ten individuals, in situations identical to that of the applicant, had successfully done so, as demonstrated by Constitutional Court decision no. 20 of 26 May 2005. The Court noted that the Constitutional Court had not ordered, in the above-mentioned decision, a review of the criminal proceedings in the cases of the successful complainants. The Government had not explained why that court would have ordered such a review in the applicant's case had he lodged a constitutional complaint. The Court was not convinced that the conditions required for a review to be ordered were met in a case like the applicant's. In sum, section   43 of the Constitutional Court Act, read in conjunction with section   416 of the New Code of Criminal Procedure, does not provide a guarantee for successful complainants, in a situation like that of the applicant, to have the appellate proceedings repeated and thereby to obtain redress for the violation of their Convention rights. In these circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that a constitutional complaint was an effective remedy in the applicant's case. Absence of public hearing : The applicant's sentence should not have been increased, as a matter of fair trial, without him or his lawyer having been present. Conclusion : violation of Article   6(1) read in conjunction with Article   6(3)(c) (unanimously). Article   41 – Where an individual, as in the instant case, has been convicted by a court in proceedings which did not meet the Convention requirement of fairness, a retrial, a reopening or a review of the case, if requested, represents in principle an appropriate way of redressing the violation.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes