[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF BORSÓDY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application
no. 16054/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20
January 2009
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Borsódy and Others v. Hungary,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Françoise Tulkens,
President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro
Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András Sajó,
Işıl
Karakaş, judges,
and Sally
Dollé, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 16 December 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 16054/06) against the
Republic of Hungary lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by three Hungarian nationals, Sándor Borsódy, Tibor
Tóth and Károly Fodor (“the applicants”),
on 9 April 2006.
- The
applicants were represented by Mr Z. Petróczy, a lawyer
practising in Kecskemét. The Hungarian
Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L.
Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
- On
4 February 2008 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government.
Applying Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to rule on
the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicants were born in 1951, 1961 and 1956 respectively and live in
Kiskunhalas.
- On
1 February 1995 the applicants were charged with soliciting
prostitution (üzletszerű kéjelgés
elősegítése). The prosecution authorities
asserted that the applicants, acting as a criminal gang, had been
involved in running a brothel with minors working there as
prostitutes.
- Having
held seven hearings, the Kiskunhalas District Court found the
applicants guilty as charged on 21 November 1997. They appealed. On
18 June 1998 the Bács-Kiskun County Regional Court
quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the
District Court.
- In
the resumed proceedings, the District Court held three hearings and
acquitted the applicants on 12 April 2005. The prosecution appealed.
- On
20 October 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicants' acquittal
on the ground of lack of evidence. It noted that during the
proceedings, relevant evidence, in particular an audio tape recorded
by a journalist investigating the matter, had been lost and that some
key witnesses of the prosecution had withdrawn their testimonies
before a Rumanian notary public. However, it did not investigate the
circumstances of these events.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of
Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began in February 1995 and
ended in October 2005. It thus lasted ten years and eight months for
two levels of jurisdiction, including a remittal.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that the application is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the
applicants and the relevant authorities (see, among many other
authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no.
25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II)
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
application (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or convincing argument
capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the
present circumstances. Having regard to its case-law on the subject,
the Court finds that the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- Each
of the applicants claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage.
-
The Government contested these claims.
-
The Court observes that the applicants' acquittal appears to have
been connected to the loss of key evidence and the intervening
withdrawal of important testimonies. These events, for their part,
may have been regarded as linked to the protraction of the
proceedings. The Court therefore considers that the applicants have
benefited of the length of the procedure. Consequently, it is
satisfied that the finding of a violation alone constitutes
sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage they may
have suffered otherwise.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicants did not make any claim under this head.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds that the finding of a violation
constitutes sufficient just satisfaction for any moral damage which
the applicants may have suffered;
- Dismisses the applicants' claim for just
satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 January 2009, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Sally
Dollé Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President
