CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 avril 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 5 April 1999 Kokavecz v. Hungary (dec.) - 27312/95 Decision 20.4.1999 [Section II] Article 34 Victim Compensation proceedings brought after introduction of the application but still pending: inadmissible The applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a murder and his detention on remand was ordered by a court. The applicant was charged, inter alia , with instigation to premeditated murder. His appeals against the detention order and its subsequent prolongation were to no avail. However, his release was finally ordered, at his request, and he was later acquitted of the charge of instigation to premeditated murder. Following his acquittal, the applicant brought a claim for compensation for the time spent in detention on remand. The claim is still pending. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1 and § 3: At the time of the introduction of the application, no issue arose as to the exhaustion of the domestic remedies which were then at the applicant’s disposal as regards the termination of his detention on remand. However, after his acquittal, the remedies designed to seek pecuniary redress for the pre-trial detention of persons subsequently acquitted became available to him, that is an official liability action and a compensation claim. The applicant has availed himself of the latter possibility, and the proceedings are still pending. Given the fact that these proceedings may well result in compensation for undue detention on remand, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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