FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 39448/14 Zoltán Tamás KISS against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 June 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Faris Vehabović , President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc , Péter Paczolay , judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2014,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Zoltán Tamás Kiss, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Debrecen. He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Szabó , a lawyer practising in Debrecen.

2. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi , Ministry of Justice.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4. Criminal proceedings were conducted against the applicant, as of February 2012, on charges of misappropriation of public funds.

5. While the applicant was detained o n remand, in February and March 2012 a senior judge of the court trying him issued press releases in which some of the conducts reproached to the applicant were allegedly presented as proven facts linked to his person. At this point in time, no first-instance judgment had yet been given in the case.

6. The applicant ’ s civil action based on the perceived insinuation contained in the press releases was to no avail, the final decision being handed down by the Kúria on 2 October 2013 (service: 27 November 2013).

B. Relevant domestic law

7 . Article XXVIII( 2) of the Fundamental Law reads as follows:

“No one shall be considered guilty until his or her criminal liability has been established by the final decision of a court.”

COMPLAINT

8. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the domestic authorities breached his right to presumption of innocence.

THE LAW

9. The applicant complained that the press releases and the civil courts ’ ensuing handling of the issue amounted to an infringement of his rights under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, which provides as follows:

“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

10. The Government submitted that the applicant should have pursued a constitutional complaint under sections 26 or 27 of the Constitutional Court Act. The applicant disagreed, arguing in essence that the constitutional complaint would not have been an effective remedy.

11. The Court has already held that a constitutional complaint under section 26(1) and/or section 27 of the Constitutional Court Act is an effective remedy normally to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in situations where the application concerns Convention rights equally protected by the Fundamental Law of Hungary (see Szalontay v. Hungary ( dec. ), no. 71327/13, 12 March 2019).

12. The present case concerns complaints about an alleged breach of the right to presumption of innocence which is enshrined in Article 6 § 2 of the Convention and Article XXVIII( 2) of the Fundamental Law (see paragraph 7 above). It follows that the constitutional complaint would have been an effective remedy to exhaust in the circumstances.

13. Since the applicant did not avail himself of this legal avenue, the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, according to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 27 June 2019 .

Andrea Tamietti Faris Vehabović Deputy Registrar President