European Court of Human Rights

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF JUHÁSZ AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 6467/13 and 9 other applications -

see list appended)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

 

STRASBOURG

 

7 January 2016

 

 

 

This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision.




In the case of Juhász and Others v. Hungary,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 3 December 2015,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The cases originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.

2.  The applications were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).

THE FACTS

3.  The list of applicants, their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

4.  The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In the application no. 44056/13, the applicant also raised complaints under other provisions of the Convention.

THE LAW

I.  JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

5.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 3 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, which read as follows:

Article 3

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 13

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...”

7.  The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case-law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 90-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-165, 10 January 2012). It reiterates in particular that extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v. Lithuania, no. 53254/99, §§ 36-40, 7 April 2005).

8.  In the leading case of Varga and Others v. Hungary (nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13, 10 March 2015), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

9.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate.

10.  The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which to submit their complaints concerning their conditions of detention.

11.  These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III.  REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12.  In the application no. 44056/13, the applicant also raised complaints under other Articles of the Convention.

13.  The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.

14.  It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

15.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

16.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law (see, in particular, Varga and Others v. Hungary, nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13, §§ 118-124, 10 March 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

17.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.  Decides to join the applications;

 

2.  Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible and the remainder of application no. 44056/13 inadmissible;

 

3.  Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy;




 

4.  Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 January 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Vincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy Registrar President

 

 




 

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)

No.	Application no. Date of introduction	Applicant name Date of birth	Representative name and location	Facility Start and end date Duration	Sq. m. per inmate	Specific grievances	Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros)[i]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[ii]
1.	6467/13 18/01/2013	Gyula JUHÁSZ 04/08/1969		Budapest Prison 17/08/2010 to 20/09/2013 3 year(s) and 2 month(s)	2 m²	shower only once a week, cockroaches, bedbugs, only cold water in cell	11,500
2.	31957/13 13/05/2013	Péter András NYERGES 21/07/1984		Baranya County Prison 10/10/2008 to 04/07/2009 0 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Somogy County Prison 04/07/2009 to 04/01/2010 0 year(s) and 7 month(s)   Budapest Prison 23/08/2010 to 25/09/2013 3 year(s) and 2 month(s)	2.5 m²         2.1 m²           2.5 m²	shower only once a week, bedbugs       shower only once a week, bedbugs       shower only once a week, bedbugs, no proper separation of toilet	15,500
3.	33715/13 13/05/2013	László BOGÁR 26/02/1959		Tolna County Prison 02/04/2009 to 10/10/2011 2 year(s) and 7 month(s) Budapest Prison 10/10/2011 to 02/10/2013 2 year(s)	2.7 m²         3 m²	shower only once a week, bedbugs, no proper separation of toilet   bedbugs, no proper separation of toilet	15,800
4.	44029/13 03/07/2013	András Gábor GÁBRYEL 31/07/1973		Budapest Correctional Facility 27/03/2008 to 25/09/2008 0 year(s) and 6 month(s)     Budapest Prison 25/09/2009 to 27/06/2014 4 year(s) and 10 month(s)	2 m²               3 m²	shower only once a week, bedbugs, cockroaches, no proper separation of toilet, no proper ventilation in the cell   shower only once a week, bedbugs, cockroaches, no proper separation of toilet, no proper ventilation in the cell	18,000
5.	44056/13 02/07/2013	László JURCSÁN 25/05/1983		Pálhalma Prison 17/01/2013 to 21/02/2014 1 year(s) and 2 month(s)	3.2 m²	shower only once a week, bedbugs, cockroaches	5,500
6.	45122/13 08/07/2013	József Pál BAKI 08/05/1955		Budapest Prison 10/06/2010 to 06/04/2014 3 year(s) and 10 month(s)	2.9 m²	bedbugs, cockroaches, no proper separation of toilet	13,500
7.	64543/13 26/09/2013	Miklós ZORD 17/02/1989		Somogy County Prison 29/07/2011 to 15/08/2011 0 year(s) and 1 month(s)   Sopronkőhida Prison 15/08/2011 to 28/08/2014 3 year(s) and 1 month(s)	3 m²             1.75 m²	no proper ventilation in the cell         no proper ventilation in the cell	11,500
8.	593/14 20/12/2013	Alajos MÁTYÁS 20/12/1964	Visontai Csongor Budapest	Budapest Prison, Block "A" 10/05/2012 to 31/05/2012 0 year(s) and 1 month(s)     Budapest Prison, Block "B" 01/06/2012 to 24/03/2014 1 year(s) and 10 month(s)	3 m²               3.25 m²	shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet, no proper ventilation in the cell, only cold water in cell   no proper ventilation in the cell, only cold water in cell	7,800	300
9.	597/14 18/12/2013	Zsolt NAGY 27/03/1983		Sopronkőhida Prison 17/06/2013 to 23/11/2014 1 year(s) and 6 month(s)	3 m²		6,500
10.	1384/14 20/12/2013	József MINYÁK 27/04/1971	Lukács Zoltán Gyöngyös	Szeged Prison 01/10/1995 to 18/11/2014 19 year(s) and 2 month(s)	2.2 m²	no proper separation of toilet, insufficient heating during winter	26,000

 




---

[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

[ii] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.