European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
Laszlo GOMBOS v Hungary - 1355/06 [2012] ECHR 673 (20 March 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/673.html
Cite as:
[2012] ECHR 673
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
SECOND
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
1355/06
László GOMBOS
against Hungary
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 March
2012 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub
Popović,
President,
András
Sajó,
Paulo
Pinto de Albuquerque,
judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 2005,
Having
regard to the statement made by the Austrian Government according to
which they did not intend to exercise the right to intervene in the
case under Article 36 § 1 of the Convention,
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The
applicant, Mr László Gombos, is a national of Austria
and Hungary, who was born in 1939 and lives in Sukoró. He was
represented before the Court by Mr E. Hargitai, a lawyer
practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent,
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
A. The circumstances of the case
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as
follows.
On 5
July 1999 the applicant was interrogated on suspicion of criminal
bankruptcy by the Central Investigative Department of the Hungarian
Tax and Financial Control Office. On the same day his Hungarian
passport, valid until 20 February 2002, was withdrawn by the
Hungarian authorities.
A
bill of indictment was preferred on 8 June 2000. After several
hearings, the Pest Central District Court found the applicant guilty
of attempted criminal bankruptcy on 4 February 2002. This judgment
was quashed by the Budapest Regional Court on 13 June 2003.
In
the resumed proceedings – during which the applicant possessed
an Austrian passport – the Pest Central District Court held
several hearings and acquitted the applicant on 26 October 2005. The
judgment became final on the same day.
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about
the protraction of the criminal proceedings. Moreover, relying on
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, he complained that the
withdrawal of his Hungarian passport amounted to a violation of his
freedom of movement.
PROCEDURE
On 10
March 2011 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit
observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s
complaint.
On 28
June 2011 the Government submitted their observations.
By a
letter dated 29 June 2011, the Government’s observations were
sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit his observations
in reply by 10 August 2011, together with his claims for just
satisfaction. This communication remained unanswered.
By
letter dated 3 November 2011, sent by registered post, the
applicant’s representative was reminded that the period allowed
for the submission of his observations had expired and that no
extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention
was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the
Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out where
the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not
intend to pursue the application. This letter was received by the
applicant’s representative on 10 November 2011.
No
response to the Court’s letters has been received ever since.
THE LAW
The
Court notes that on 3 November 2011 the applicant’s
representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of
written observations had expired and he was warned of the possibility
that the case might be struck out of the Court’s list. The
representative did not reply to the Court.
The
Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be
regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the
meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in
accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds
no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as
defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the
continued examination of the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise
Elens-Passos Dragoljub Popović
Deputy
Registrar President