FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 18854/14 Brigitta HEISZNÉ SZŐRÖS against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 June 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda , President, Carlo Ranzoni , Péter Paczolay , judges, and Ilse Freiwirth, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2014,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Ms Brigitta Heiszné Szőrös , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Budapest. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. Kalló , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

2 . The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi , of the Ministry of Justice.

The circumstances of the case

3 . The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4 . On 3 December 2008 the Győr District Court convicted the applicant of counterfeiting money. On 18 February 2010 the Győr - Moson -Sopron County Regional Court upheld in essence this conviction. On 13 October 2011 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment.

5 . The applicant subsequently complained to the Kúria that Dr J., the president of the second-instance trial bench, had previously participated in the case more than once as president of a second-instance panel reviewing decisions given by the investigating judge on her detention.

6 . The Kúria dismissed this complaint on 2 September 2013, holding in particular that the mere fact that Dr J. had previous involvement in the case did not indicate as such any bias on the part of the trial bench.

7 . The applicant was subsequently detained, until 4 October 2013, at Kalocsa Prison, in allegedly cramped and inadequate conditions (2.5 square metres personal space, insufficient heating and lighting, infestation by insects).

8 . On 15 February 2017 the applicant submitted a compensation claim in the procedure contemplated in the case of Domján v. Hungary (( dec. ), no. 5433/17, § 25, 14 November 2017).

9 . On 15 February 2018 the Kecskemét High Court awarded her 693,600 Hungarian forints in compensation (approximately 2,200 euros at the time).

COMPLAINTS

10 . The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the material conditions at Kalocsa Prison amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and, under Article 6 § 1, that the involvement in her trial of a judge previously reviewing her detention rendered the procedure unfair.

THE LAW

11 . The applicant complained that the conditions at Kalocsa Prison represented inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:

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

12 . The Government argued that the applicant had lost her victim status for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention. The applicant disagreed.

13 . The Court has already found that the compensation procedure which the applicant availed herself of is an effective remedy to be pursued (see Domján ( dec. ), cited above).

14 . In the present case, the applicant successfully used this legal avenue and was awarded compensation. The Court is therefore satisfied that the domestic authorities acknowledged the violation complained of and awarded adequate redress. It follows that the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of her Convention rights in this connection. This complaint is thus incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

15 . The applicant further complained, without advancing further arguments, that the double involvement of Dr J. had rendered her trial unfair. She relied on Article 6 § 1 which provides as relevant:

“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”

16 . The Government argued that the mere fact that Dr J. had reviewed decisions on the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was insufficient to undermine the impartiality of the trial bench. The applicant disagreed in general terms.

19 . In these circumstances, the Court considers that there is no indication that the courts trying the applicant lacked impartiality or that the proceedings were otherwise unfair. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 3 September 2020 .

Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President