FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36581/15 Rudolf PUPORKA and Vilmos OLAH against Hungary

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 February 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 16 July 2015,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicants, Mr Rudolf Puporka and Mr Vilmos Oláh , are Hungarian nationals, who were born in 1967 and 1970 and live in Bér and Szirák , respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr G. Győző , a lawyer practising in Budapest.

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

3 . On 17 February 2017 Mr Oláh died. His wife, Mrs Vilmosné Oláh , a Hungarian national who was born in 1980 and lives in Szirák , succeeded him in the proceedings before the Court.

The circumstances of the case

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

5 . On 1 July 2013 the applicants were caught in the act of stealing farm produce from a field. Several police officers arrived at the scene, three of whom repeatedly hit and kicked the applicants who had offered no resistance to the police intervention. After having left the applicants, handcuffed and lying on the ground for a period of time under direct sunshine, the officers eventually committed the applicants to the local police station.

6 . Mr Oláh suffered an injury which was to heal within eight days; whereas Mr Puporka sustained injuries which were to heal in more than eight days.

7 . In the ensuing prosecution against the officers, the Attorney General ’ s Office discontinued the case on 12 January 2015 considering that no criminal offence could be proven.

8 . The applicants continued the case as substitute private prosecutors. On 11 November 2015 the Military Bench of the Budapest High Court convicted the officers of ill-treatment committed in official capacity, grave bodily assault and light bodily assault. Two officers were sentenced to one year in prison, suspended, and demotion. The third officer was sentenced to eighteen months in prison and two years ’ ban from public matters.

9 . On 11 November 2016 the Military Bench of the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld this conviction. On 20 June 2017 the Kúria upheld the judgment.

10 . Subsequently, as of 2017, Mr Puporka sued the Heves County Police Department for personality rights violations. On 19 June 2018 the Eger High Court held that the incident amounted to an infringement of the plaintiff ’ s personality rights pertaining to bodily integrity and health. It awarded him 1,500,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 5,000 euros at the material time) in non-pecuniary damages as well as legal costs.

11 . On appeal, on 11 December 2018 the Debrecen Court of Appeal amended the first-instance decision, holding that the incident had also entailed a breach of the plaintiff ’ s human dignity. It did not change the award.

COMPLAINTS

12 . The applicants complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been ill-treated by the police, an incident which had not been properly investigated.

THE LAW

13 . The applicants submitted that they had been victims of police brutality and that the investigations into the case had not been adequate. They relied on Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows:

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

14 . The Government submitted that, given the domestic criminal and civil judgments, the applicants could no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their Convention rights. The applicants disagreed.

15 . The Court notes that the perpetrators were identified and successfully prosecuted. They were sentenced to prison sentences and other sanctions. Moreover, in the ensuing civil procedure pursued by Mr Puporka alone (after Mr Oláh ’ s death), the courts found that the incident represented a breach of the plaintiff ’ s personality rights pertaining to bodily integrity, health and human dignity; and awarded a substantial amount of money in non-pecuniary damages.

16 . In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the national authorities acknowledged in substance, and afforded adequate redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, among many authorities, Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 128, ECHR 2012).

17 . It follows that the applicants can no longer claim to be victims of a violation of their Convention rights. The application is 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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 March 2020 .

Ilse Freiwirth Branko Lubarda Deputy Registrar President