Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF BAKOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

(Application no. 29644/13 and 7 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 Bakos 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. 33213/13, the applicant also raised a complaint under another provision 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 ARTICLES 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 COMPLAINT

12 . In the application no. 33213/13 , the applicant also raised a complaint under another Article 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, this complaint does 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. 33213/13 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) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

29644/13

17/04/2013

Zsolt BAKOS

13/04/1972

Turán Tünde

Budapest

Budapest Prison

04/08/2008

pending

7 year(s) and 3 month(s)

3,1 m²

toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects, shower only once a week

23,000

300

31766/13

10/05/2013

Béla MÁTÉ

11/08/1965

Cech András

Budapest

Budapest Correctional Facility, Székesfehérvár Prison and Baracska Prison

10/05/2010 to

06/09/2010

0 year(s) and 4 month(s)

Juvenile Correctional Facility, Tököl , Budapest Correctional Facility and Székesfehérvár Prison

06/09/2010 to

12/09/2011

1 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Veszprém County Prison, Budapest Correctional Facility and

Székesfehérvár Prison

12/09/2011 to

05/03/2012

0 year(s) and 6 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "A", Székesfehérvár Prison and Pálhalma Prison

05/03/2012 to

23/07/2014

2 year(s) and 5 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "B"

23/07/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 4 month(s)

2.5 m²

3 m²

2 m²

2.6 m²

3.1 m²

shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects

shower only once a week

shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects

shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects

19,000

300

32647/13

14/05/2013

Árpád PAP

18/11/1972

Kalnasi Agnes

Budapest

Budapest Correctional Facility, Block III. (" Maglódi / Venyige ") and Budapest Prison

06/03/2012 to

06/03/2014

2 year(s) and 1 month(s)

2.3 m²

toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects

8,300

300

33213/13

17/05/2013

Árpád RECSKÓ

02/03/1985

Budapest Prison

31/12/2011 to

01/05/2014

2 year(s) and 5 month(s)

3 m²

9,300

62914/13

30/09/2013

Károly MUST

24/12/1976

Sallai András

Szigetszentmiklós

Bács-Kiskun County Prison and Székesfehérvár Prison

03/03/2009 to

03/04/2010

1 year(s) and 2 month(s)

Budapest Prison and Győr - Moson -Sopron County Prison

10/07/2010 to

18/12/2014

4 year(s) and 6 month(s)

3 m²

shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell

shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects

19,000

300

64329/13

09/10/2013

József KANALAS

31/07/1978

Vác Prison

14/12/2010 to

01/07/2011

0 year(s) and 7 month(s)

Balassagyarmat Prison

01/07/2011 to

01/07/2012

1 year(s) and 1 month(s)

Budapest Prison

01/07/2012 to

10/02/2014

1 year(s) and 8 month(s)

Baracska Prison

10/02/2014

pending

1 year(s) and 9 month(s)

1.9 m²

2.25 m²

2.5 m²

1.9 m²

toilet not separated from the rest of the cell

only cold water in cell

17,300

18212/14

24/02/2014

István KORBER

31/10/1967

Fahidi Gergely

Budapest

Budapest Prison, Block "A"

28/04/2012 to

17/08/2012

0 year(s) and 4 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "B"

17/08/2012 to

17/12/2012

0 year(s) and 5 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "A"

17/12/2012

pending

2 year(s) and 11 month(s)

2.6 m²

2.5 m²

2.6 m²

toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, only cold water in cell, infestation of the cell with insects

infestation of the cell with insects

toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, only cold water in cell, infestation of the cell with insects

13,000

300

20263/14

07/03/2014

György KORONDÁN

18/07/1974

Nemesszeghy Aurél

Budapest

Hajdú -Bihar County Prison

31/03/2011 to

06/11/2013

2 year(s) and 8 month(s)

2.5 m²

shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air

10,000

300[1] . Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.

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

Menu

CASE OF BAKOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

CASE OF BAKOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

LEXI