Communicated on 4 January 2018

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 5692/13 Zsolt Béla CSÁSZY and Miklos Zoltan TATRAI against Hungary lodged on 17 December 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns criminal proceedings conducted against the applicants between 2009 and 8 June 2017 on charges of misappropriation of public funds and other offences. The President of the National Judicial Office designated, in application of section 62 (1) of Act no. CLXI of 2011 on the Organisation and Administration of the Judiciary, the Szolnok High Court to try the applicants, instead of the geographically competent Budapest High Court.

On 30 September 2015 the Szolnok High Court convicted the applicants (9.B. 392/2014/97.).

On appeal, on 26 October 2016 the Szeged Court of Appeal acquitted them (Bf.I.315/2016/41.).

On further appeal, on 8 June 2017 the Kúria convicted the applicants and sentenced them to 3 and 2.5 years of imprisonment, respectively (Bhar.II.612/2017/15.).

The applicants submit that their conviction was based to a large extent on the opinion of an expert commissioned by the prosecution and on the testimonies of witnesses which could only be examined by the prosecution.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, DMD GROUP, a.s ., v. Slovakia , no. 19334/03 , 5 October 2010, and Miracle Europe Kft v. Hungary , no. 57774/13 , 12 January 2016 ) ? In particular, can the designated court which dealt with their case be regarded as ‘ an independent and impartial tribunal established by law ’ ?

2. Was the principle of equality of arms respected in the present case, as required by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, were the applicants able adequately to examine the witnesses against them and challenge the expert on whose opinion their conviction appears to be based?

3. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?