Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/7873.03-en-20060411/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-13 02:18:55
Document Index: 31807159

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 7873', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 4']

FEJES v. HUNGARY About Project
CASE OF FEJES v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 7873/03)
In the case of Fejes v. Hungary,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 7873/03) 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 a Hungarian national, Mr István Fejes (“the applicant”), on 20 December 2002.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr I. Ferencz, a lawyer practising in Veszprém. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Höltzl, Deputy State-Secretary, Ministry of Justice.
4. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Veszprém.
5. On 7 November 1994 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant, the president of a savings bank, and other defendants. On 22 March 1995 the Veszprém County Police Department heard the applicant as a suspect and explained to him that an investigation was being conducted against him since he was accused of having committed fraud when granting credit to a limited company, a conduct punishable under section 297/A of the Criminal Code.
6. In February 1997 the investigation was closed.
7. On 16 October 2000 the Veszprém Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with aggravated fraud committed as an accomplice, a conduct punishable under section 318 §§ 1 and 6(a) of the Criminal Code.
8. At the hearing of 24 January 2002 a defendant and some representatives failed to appear. The Veszprém District Court heard the applicant, who stated that he did not want to propose any evidence. The case was adjourned.
9. Hearings took place on 28 May, 15 October 2002 and 3 March 2003. On 28 May 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant’s motion for bias.
10. On 11 September 2003 the District Court acquitted the applicant.
11. On 7 June 2004 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment concerning the applicant and remitted this part of the case to the District Court.
12. On 8 October 2004 the Budapest Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s motion for bias, filed against all the judges in Veszprém County.
13. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held hearings on 24 March and 12 April 2005. On that date it acquitted the applicant in the absence of any evidence proving him guilty.
14. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed. However, on 25 May 2005 the prosecution withdrew its appeal.
15. On 26 September 2005 the Regional Court upheld the applicant’s acquittal. In line with the applicant’s appeal, it found that the incriminated conduct did not constitute a criminal offence.
17. The Government contested that argument in general, but admitted that there was an unreasonable delay between the closure of the investigation in February 1997 and the submission of the bill of indictment in October 2000.
18. The period to be taken into consideration began on 7 November 1994 and ended on 26 September 2005. It thus lasted more than ten years and ten months for two levels of jurisdiction.
21. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case (see Pélissier and Sassi, cited above).
23. The applicant also complained that the proceedings were not fair, in particular in that the Police Department during the investigation and the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the bill of indictment made reference to different offences in regard to his incriminated conduct, and that his motions for bias were dismissed. He relied on Article 6 § 3 (a).
24. The Court observes that on 26 September 2005 the Regional Court finally acquitted the applicant in the absence of a crime. In these circumstances, he cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of the right to a fair hearing. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3, and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
26. The applicant claimed 124,840 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, making reference essentially to lost income. Moreover, he claimed EUR 100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
28. The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore rejects this claim. However, it considers that the applicant must have sustained some non-pecuniary damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him EUR 8,000 under that head.
29. The applicant also claimed EUR 4,000 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and the Court.
31. According to the Court’s case-law, an applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these have been actually and necessarily incurred and were reasonable as to quantum. In the present case, regard being had to the information in its possession and the above criteria, the Court rejects the claim for costs and expenses in the domestic proceedings and considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 1,500 for the proceedings before the Court.
FEJES v. HUNGARY JUDGMENT