SECOND SECTION

Application no. 66232/10 István KINCSES against Hungary lodged on 15 October 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr István Kincses , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Debrecen.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant, a lawyer, was representing a client before the Battonya District Court. On 19 March 2003 he filed a written motion with the court, together with an appeal, in which he asserted that the judge in charge of the case was biased, had committed professional errors and was unfit for the job.

The motion was transferred to the hierarchically competent Békés County Regional Court, whose vice-president indicated to the Békés County Bar that, in his view, the applicant ’ s submissions might give rise to disciplinary proceedings.

In the ensuing proceedings, on 10 June 2004 the Szeged Bar fined the applicant 300,000 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 1,000 euros (EUR)) for having committed a serious disciplinary offence.

On appeal, on 5 November 2004 the National Bar upheld this decision in essence.

The applicant sought judicial review.

On 19 September 2006 the Budapest Regional Court remitted the case to the disciplinary instances, essentially on procedural grounds.

In the resumed disciplinary proceedings, on 11 April 2008 the Szeged Bar fined the applicant HUF 170,000 (EUR 570) for having committed a deliberate disciplinary offence. The Bar was of the opinion that the expressions “ of course, we do not assume any professional shortcomings on the side of the judge in charge ”, “ this is not a question of bias, but that of clear-cut professional shortcomings ” and “ we cannot but call into question the professional fitness of the judge in charge ” amounted to disrespecting the court ’ s dignity and to denying the judge the requisite respect. This was a disciplinary offence consisting of the applicant ’ s breaching his ethical obligations.

On 3 November 2008 the National Bar upheld this decision, endorsing the Szeged Bar ’ s position that the tone and language of the impugned statement was unacceptable and prejudicial to the reputation of lawyers.

On 2 June 2009 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s action challenging the disciplinary sanction.

On 20 April 2010 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s petition for review.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the sanction imposed on him amounted to an unjustified interference with his right to freedom of expression. In this respect he relies on Articles 6 § 1, 10, 13 and 17 of the Convention. Moreover, he submitted that the proceedings lasted an unreasonably long time, in breach of Article 6 § 1.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?

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