Lexploria

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 ARTICLE S 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, Kud Å‚a 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 Article s 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]

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

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, no proper separation of toilet

15,500

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

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

18,000

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

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

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

11,500

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

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

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 .