FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 76527/17 Katalin NAGYNÉ VÖLGYESI against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 September 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková, President, Péter Paczolay, Gilberto Felici, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2017,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Katalin Nagyné Völgyesi, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Vác.

The circumstances of the case

2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

3. The applicant and her husband have nine children.

4. The applicant’s husband served a three-year prison sentence in Bács-Kiskun County Prison.

5. The applicant requested conjugal visits, either as 48 hours per month or 4 hours per week.

6. On 6 October 2017 the governor of the prison informed the applicant that the law did not allow conjugal visits as such.

7. Although no direct appeal lies against the governor’s decision, it was possible for the applicant to take civil proceedings against the prison administration claiming a breach of her privacy rights under the Civil Code. However, the applicant did not pursue the case in justice.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the impossibility of conjugal visits infringed her right to respect for family life. She also complained that the same state of affairs amounted to discrimination in breach of Article 14.

THE LAW

9. The applicant complained that the fact that Hungarian law did not provide for conjugal visits amounted to an unjustified interference with her right to respect for family life and was discriminatory, in violation of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, which in relevant parts read:

Article 8

“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life ...

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

Article 14

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

10. The Court observes that, on receipt of the impugned refusal from the prison governor, the applicant did not bring her grievance before the domestic courts. In particular, had she filed an action with the civil courts against the prison administration claiming a breach of her privacy rights contained in the Civil Code, the ensuing final court decision, if unsatisfactory, could have been challenged before the Constitutional Court. The Court has already held that a constitutional complaint under section 26(1) and/or section 27 of the Constitutional Court Act is an effective remedy normally to be exhausted for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Szalontay v. Hungary (dec.), no. 71327/13, §§ 29-41, 12 March 2019).

11. Since the applicant failed to approach the domestic courts in order to obtain a ruling that could have been examined by the Constitutional Court, the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, according to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 October 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President