SECOND SECTION

Application no. 32760/10 Zoltán BAUER against Hungary lodged on 8 June 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zoltán Bauer, is a Romanian national who was born in Szatmárnémeti and lives in Szombathely , Hungary .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 30 March 2005 the applicant was convicted of forgery of documents and sentenced to one year ’ s imprisonment. He did not report voluntarily to the penitentiary to start serving the sentence. On 10 January 2006 an arrest warrant was issued. He was apprehended on 15 September 2009.

On the basis of an amendment to section 47(4)e) of the Criminal Code, enacted on 9 August 2009, according to which those convicts who had absconded from the service of the sentence were no longer eligible for parole, on 29 September 2009 the Budapest Regional Court decided to exclude the applicant from the possibility of parole.

The applicant complained to the Attorney General ’ s Penitentiary Supervisory Department that this measure amounted to a retroactive criminal sanction since when he had absconded from serving his sentence, the consequence of forfeiting parole eligibility had not yet been enacted.

In pursuit of the complaint, on 31 March 2010 the Vas Department Chief Prosecutor ’ s Office filed a motion with the Vas County Regional Court , endorsing the applicant ’ s complaint. The prosecutor recalled that the Supreme Court had meanwhile issued a guideline on the issue, according to which the amendment in question was only applicable in cases where the convict ’ s convocation to the commencement of the sentence included a warning about the risk of losing parole eligibility – which was not so in the applicant ’ s case.

On 12 April 2010 the Vas County Regional Court ’ s penitentiary judge upheld the applicant ’ s exclusion from parole, applying the amended rule. It argued in essence that the absconding from the sentence amounted to culpability on the applicant ’ s side and as such was one of the elements to be taken into account when assessing if the convict ’ s conduct earned his release on parole; in this light, the amendment in question did not amount to retroactive criminal legislation.

On appeal, on 14 May 2010 the Regional Court ’ s panel upheld the applicant ’ s exclusion from parole (Bkf.145/2010/2). The applicant ’ s petition for review to the Supreme Court was to no avail.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that he was the victim of retroactive application of the criminal law. He invokes Articles 6, 7, 13 and 14.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicant than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of the offence in the present case, as proscribed by Article 7 of the Convention, given the fact that he was excluded from parole for his absconding from starting the service of his sentence, but the related sanction was enacted only years later?