SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 55228/00 by Mária GECSE and Péter HERMÁN against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 December 2002 as a Chamber composed of

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr Gaukur Jörundsson , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , judges , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs W. Thomassen , substitute judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 1999,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mária Gecse (M.G.) and Péter Hermán (P.H.) are Hungarian nationals who were born in 1954 and 1951 respectively and live in Budapest.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

(1) During the night of 22 September 1996 the applicants allegedly broke into the house of M.G.’s husband and, using violence, forced him to sign documents agreeing to the dissolution of their marriage.

On 24 September 1996 the applicants were arrested and kept in police custody until 3 October 1996. On 24 September both applicants denied having committed the offences. On 25 September M.G. confessed and testified that P.H. was an accomplice.

On 18 December 1996 the Miskolc Public Prosecutor’s Office proffered a bill of indictment against the applicants charging them with blackmail together with bodily assault. The charges were confirmed by the Public Prosecutor in his submissions of 11 June 1996.

The Miskolc District Court held hearings on 18 September, 11 November 1997, 19 March and 11 June 1998. On the latter date M.G. withdrew her confession on the ground that she might have been unconscious when she was questioned on 25 September 1996. After having heard P.H., the victim and other witnesses on 11 June 1998, the District Court convicted the applicants of blackmail together with bodily assault and sentenced them to 2 years’ imprisonment, suspended for 4 years.

Upon the applicants’ appeal, on 12 April 1999 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the first instance decision and remitted the case to the District Court, considering that the proceedings for establishing the facts were unlawful.

On 29 October 1999 the applicants requested the Miskolc District Court to postpone the hearing originally scheduled for 8 a.m. on 30 November 1999, to 10  a.m. on the same day. They claimed that, as they were living in Budapest, it would be impossible for them to get there in time by public transport.

On 30 November 1999 the hearing was held at 8 a.m. as scheduled, but was postponed to 7 March 2000 as the applicants failed to attend. Another hearing was scheduled for 8 a.m. on 25 May 2000.

The hearing of 5 October 2000 was postponed when the applicants failed to appear.

On 20 March 2001 the court heard the applicants. At another hearing on 7 June 2001 the court heard witnesses and experts.

Hearings were scheduled for 8 November 2001, 5 February and 16 May 2002.

The proceedings are still pending.

The applicants allege that they cannot leave Hungary pending the outcome of the proceedings as their passports have been confiscated by the Hungarian authorities.

(2) On 27 December 1996 an article was published in a daily newspaper about the events which occurred on the night of 22 and 23 September 1996. The article was based on the results of the investigation and interviews with the applicants and M.G.’s husband.

In early 1997 the applicants brought an action before the Pest Central District Court against the newspaper requesting that the article be corrected.

On 4 February 1997 the District Court dismissed their action on the ground that the article was based on the outcome of the investigation. It also held that if their innocence was proved, they could request the paper to publish the decision.

On 29 May 1997 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal. The judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court on 17 February 1999. The applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing and at the delivery of the judgment , as required by law.

(3) In March 1997 the applicants, relying on the same press article, brought another action before the Pest Central District Court alleging an infringement of their personality rights and claiming damages. On 22 April 1999 the court dismissed their action, for the same reasons as in the judgment of 4 February 1997. On 5 October 2000 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed their appeal. There is no information as to whether the applicants submitted a petition for review to the Supreme Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. As to (1) , the applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings and under Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4 that they cannot leave the country pending the outcome of the proceedings.

2. As to (2) , the applicants complain that the courts’ decisions were wrong. They invoke Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

3. As to (3) , the applicants complain about the length and the outcome of the proceedings. They invoke Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. As regards the length of the criminal proceedings, the applicants allege a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

The applicants also allege a violation of  Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4, which, together with § 3 of the same Article, reads as follows:

“2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

The Court observes that it is unclear from the case file whether the applicants’ passports were withdrawn and, if so, when and whether the act of withdrawal amounted to a justified restriction on their rights guaranteed under Article 2 § 2 of Protocol No. 4. Having regard also to the fact that domestic courts bear greater responsibility to deliver a final judgment within a “reasonable time” even in the event of a restriction which is justified under Article 2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4, the Court finds in necessary in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. Insofar as the applicants challenge the outcome of the civil proceedings under (2) , the Court observes that the final judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 17 February 1999 and that the applicants’ lawyer was informed of its content on the same day. However, the application was introduced with the Court only on 20 December 1999, i.e. more than six months later, and is thus time-barred. Therefore, this complaint must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

3. As regards (3) , even assuming that the applicants exhausted domestic remedies, the Court considers that the applicants’ complaints concerning the outcome of the case are essentially of a fourth-instance nature. The applicants’ complaints under Article 8 of the Convention also essentially concern the outcome of the case and do not raise any separate issue. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

As to the length of the civil proceedings under (3), the Court observes that it has insufficient information concerning the period between 1997 when the applicants’ action was filed, and 22 April 1999 when the first-instance judgment was delivered in the case. Given this alleged period of inactivity, the Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants’ complaints concerning the length of the civil proceedings concerning the applicants’ personality rights, the length of the criminal proceedings and the alleged interference with their freedom of movement;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

T.L. Early J.-P. Costa              Deputy Registrar President