European Court of Human Rights

 

 

 

 

FOURTH SECTION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CASE OF BÓDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

 

(Application no. 53398/13 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 Bóday 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.

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 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.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  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.”

13.  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.

14.  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 applications admissible;

 

3.  Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an 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)[1]	Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros)[2]
1.	53398/13 15/08/2013	Pál Péter BÓDAY 06/03/1972	Fürjes József Budapest	Budapest Prison, 20/03/2012 to 20/03/2013 1 year(s) and 1 month(s)	2.8 m²	toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (adequate) heating	5,300	300
2.	54330/13 14/08/2013	Péter HARASZTI 31/07/1975	Fürjes József Budapest	Budapest Correctional Facility 30/04/2009 to 09/03/2010 0 year(s) and 11 month(s)   Budapest Prison 10/03/2009 pending 6 year(s) and 8 month(s)	2.5 m²             2.8 m²	toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (adequate) heating	12,000	300
3.	55601/13 24/08/2013	Kálmán VARGA 14/10/1972	Turán Tünde Budapest	Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Prison and Sátoraljaújhely Prison 12/12/2011 to 10/08/2012 0 year(s) and 8 month(s)	2.5 m²		5,000	300
4.	56806/13 02/09/2013	Roland RAMOS 25/03/1992		Szeged Prison, Block III. ("Algyő-Nagyfa") 30/04/2013 to 30/11/2014 1 year(s) and 8 month(s)         Szeged Prison, Block I. ("Mars") 30/11/2014 pending 1 year(s)	2.2 m²                 3.1 m²	toilet not separated from the rest of the cell	10,000
5.	65103/13 13/10/2013	Ervin BARANYI 08/04/1975	Diószegi Éva Budapest	Budapest Prison 01/04/1995 to 01/12/1996 1 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Szeged Prison 01/12/1996 to 01/08/2002 5 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Budapest Prison 01/10/2005 to 01/06/2014 8 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Márianosztra Prison 01/06/2014 to 01/07/2014 0 year(s) and 2 month(s)	2.6 m²         3 m²         3.2 m²         3.3 m²	toilet not separated from the rest of the cell       toilet not separated from the rest of the cell       toilet not separated from the rest of the cell       toilet not separated from the rest of the cell	26,000	300
6.	18201/14 25/02/2014	Tamás KATONA 13/10/1981		Budapest Correctional Facility, Block I. ("Nagy Ignác/Markó") 25/07/2012 to 12/02/2013 0 year(s) and 7 month(s)   Budapest Prison 12/02/2013 to 19/01/2015 2 year(s)         Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Prison and Budapest Correctional Facility 19/01/2015 pending 0 year(s) and 10 month(s)	3 m²             3 m²               3 m²	infestation of the cell with insects               infestation of the cell with insects	12,300
7.	21840/14 10/03/2014	Tibor SALAMON 25/06/1981	Vidákovics Béla Zsolt Budapest	Zala County Prison 19/10/2007 to 22/03/2010 2 year(s) and 6 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "B" 22/03/2010 to 01/06/2012 2 year(s) and 3 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "A" 01/06/2012 pending 3 year(s) and 5 month(s)	2.2 m²         3.1 m²           3 m²	toilet not separated from the rest of the cell                   toilet not separated from the rest of the cell	26,000	300
8.	22180/14 14/03/2014	Miklós NAGY 15/12/1972	Rácz Gergely Budapest	Budapest Correctional Facility and Budapest Prison, Block "B" 25/05/2010 to 20/09/2013 3 year(s) and 4 month(s)	2.2 m²	shower only once a week	12,000
9.	22958/14 17/04/2014	Zoltán ÁRVAI 15/06/1976		Szeged Prison 09/05/2006 to 13/06/2013 7 year(s) and 2 month(s)	2.5 m²	toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects	23,500
10.	23555/14 14/03/2014	László Sándor GÖNCZ 21/12/1971	Fahidi Gergely Budapest	Budapest Prison, Block "A" 13/02/2012 to 27/11/2014 2 year(s) and 10 month(s)	2.6 m²	only cold water in cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (adequate) heating	10,500	300

 

 




---

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

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