CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 mars 2001

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 28 March 2001 Dallos v. Hungary - 29082/95 Judgment 1.3.2001 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-3-a Information on nature and cause of accusation Reclassification of offence by appeal court: no violation Facts : The applicant was convicted of aggravated embezzlement.   He appealed to the Regional Court, which upheld the conviction and sentence, but reclassified the offence as aggravated fraud. The court held that the facts outlined in the indictment constituted this offence. The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court which, after hearing an address by the applicant's lawyer at a public session, upheld the conviction. Law : Government's preliminary objection (six months) – Since the question whether the petition for review was an effective remedy did not arise during the proceedings before the European Commission of Human Rights, the Government's objection is of a character which prevented them making it earlier and they are thus not estopped. It is not disputed that the review proceedings were capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints, and since the Supreme Court in fact entertained his petition and dealt with his arguments in detail, it cannot be said that the review did not offer reasonable prospects of success. It was therefore an effective remedy to be exhausted and the six month period ran from the dismissal of the petititon by the Supreme Court. Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) – The applicant was not aware that the Regional Court might reclassify his offence as fraud and this certainly impaired his chances of defending himself in respect of the charges of which he was eventually convicted. However, the Supreme Court reviewed the case entirely, from both a procedural and substantive point of view, and could have acquitted the applicant. It was satisfied that the elements of the offence of fraud were present and it thus examined itself whether the applicant was guilty of that offence. Consequently, the applicant had an opportunity to put forward his defence to the reformulated charge and, in view of the nature of the examination by the Supreme Court, any defects in the proceedings before the Regional Court were remedied. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes