SECOND SECTION

CASE OF DOMOKI v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 3373/11 )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

17 February 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision .

In the case of Domoki v. Hungary ,

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Helen Keller , President, András Sajó , Robert Spano , judges,

and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2015 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case originated in an application (no. 3373/11 ) 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, Ms László Miklósné Domoki (“the applicant”), on 5 January 2011 .

2 . The applicant was represented by Mr I. Győrffy , a lawyer practis ing in Debrecen. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.

3 . On 9 April 2013 the application was communicated to the Government .

THE FACTS

THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

4 . The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Debrecen .

5 . Between 2000 and 5 July 2010 criminal proceedings were being conducted against the applicant on charges of fraud before the Debrecen District Court, the Hajdú-Bihar County Regional Court and the Supreme Court. On the latter date, she was acquitted.

THE LAW

6 . The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with th e “reasonable time” requirement of A rticle 6 § 1 of the Convention.

7 . The Government contested that argument.

8 . The period to be taken into consideration began i n 2000 and ended on 5 July 2010 . It thus lasted about ten years for three l evel s of jurisdiction.

In view of such lengthy proceedings, this complaint must be declared admissible.

9 . 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, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II) .

10 . 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 considers 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.

11 . T he applicant also complained under Article 6 § 3 about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings.

The Court observes that the applicant was eventually acquitted of the charges . In these circumstances, she cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of her right to a fair trial.

This complaint is therefore incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) , and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

12 . Despite warnings, t he applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award her any sum on that account.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT , UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Declares the length complaint admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible ;

2 . Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention .

Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 February 2015 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Abel Campos Helen Keller Deputy Registrar President