CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s9E924E36 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#339966 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   700 29.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Two Chamber judgments in respect of Hungary [1] SÁNDOR LAJOS KISS V. HUNGARY (application no. 26958/05 ) TALABÉR V. HUNGARY (no. 37376/05 )   ABSENCE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL UNDERMINED FAIRNESS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS   Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging between 1,000   euros   (EUR) and EUR   1,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and between EUR   1,000 and EUR   1,350 for costs and expenses. (The judgments are available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicants in these two cases, Sándor Kiss and Attila Talabér, are two Hungarian nationals, who were born respectively in 1976 and 1953. Mr Kiss lives in Vác and Mr Talabér lives in Budapest.   In 2003, non-related criminal proceedings were brought against each of them. In 2004, Mr Kiss was found guilty of aggravated assault and sentenced to four years in prison; Mr Talabér was convicted of vandalism and sentenced to a fine. Both applicants appealed seeking acquittal. The appellate court, the same in both cases, informed them that their appeals would be decided behind closed doors; the applicants opposed, asking that public hearings be held instead.   In 2005, the appeal court examined the cases in the absence of the applicants, their lawyers and the prosecution, and upheld their convictions. The court reviewed the whole proceedings and established that they were lawful. It also held that the findings of facts by the first instance courts were correct and therefore suitable for review on appeal without taking further evidence.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c), the applicants complained of not having taken part in the appeal hearings in which decisions were taken about their convictions.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 15 July 2005 and 6 October 2005 respectively.   Judgments were given in both cases by a Chamber of seven judges composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court first recalled that, as a general rule, in criminal proceedings the hearing of the defendants in person was a fundamental requirement from which very few exceptions could be allowed.   Both applicants had been sentenced by the first instance criminal courts: Mr Kiss to a time in prison, Mr Talabér to a fine. In view of the nature of the offences of which they had been found guilty, it might have been necessary to consider on appeal issues such as the applicants’ personality and character. Consequently, both Mr Kiss and Mr Talabér should have been heard directly by the appellate court, especially given their explicit requests.   The Court noted that the appellate court, without any hearings at all, had fully reviewed the lower courts’ judgments and had determined the applicants’ guilt anew. In the Talabér case the court had even modified the findings of facts by the first instance court and had relied on new facts. It was irrelevant in this respect that the appellate court had reached the same conclusions on the merits. Accordingly, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c).     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments, with the composition of the Court, are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.