CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14447/11 Zsolt Béla CSÁSZY against Hungary lodged on 28 February 2011   STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Zsolt Béla Császy, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Győző, a lawyer practising in Budapest. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 31 August 2010 the applicant was interrogated by the Central Investigating Prosecutor’s Office as suspected of attempted misappropriation of funds. On the same day he was arrested. The applicant requested that the authorities nevertheless allow his attendance at his stepmother’s funeral which took place on the same day, at 2.15 pm. The request was immediately rejected with the reasoning that its granting would have contravened the purpose of the arrest measure. The applicant complained at once to the Attorney General. That office rejected the complaint on 10 September 2010, pointing out that the relevant decree did not allow as such for arrested persons to attend funerals, for which reason the refusal of his request had been lawful. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal of his request to attend the funeral of a close relative represented an unjustified interference with his family life. Moreover, the fact that his complaint to the Attorney General was decided on only ten days after the funeral amounted to the absence of an effective remedy.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?