Lexploria

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF LIGETI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY

( Application no. 29176/12 and 9 other applications -

see appended list )

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

10 December 2015

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Ligeti 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 19 November 2015 ,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1 . The case s 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. 30412/12, 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 the m 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 Article s 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 Article s 3 and 13 of the Convention.

III. REMAINING COMPLAINTS

12 . In the application no. 30412/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under another Article of the Convention.

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.

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

13 . 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.”

14 . 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, 10 March 2015) , the Court considers it reasonable to a w ard the sums indicated in the appended table.

15 . 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. De cides 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. 30412/12 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 an y 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 10 December 2015 , pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Hasan Bakırcı Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Re gistrar President

APPENDIX

List of applications raising complaints under Article s 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 / household

(in euros) [1]

Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application

(in euros) [2]

29176/12

30/04/2012

Attila LIGETI

25/05/1967

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

Budapest Correctional Facility

07/07/2008 to

05/04/2010

1 year(s) and

9 month(s)

Balassagyarmat Prison

05/04/2010 to

22/01/2011

0 year(s) and

10 month(s)

Budapest Prison

22/01/2011 to

22/01/2014

3 year(s) and

1 month(s)

Sátoraljaújhely Prison

22/01/2014 to

01/09/2014

0 year(s) and

8 month(s)

Baracska Prison

01/09/2014 to

01/10/2014

0 year(s) and

2 month(s)

3.75 m²

2.5 m²

2.3 m²

2.5 m²

no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week

shower only once a week

no proper separation of toilet

21,500

300

30412/12

09/05/2012

György BENEDEK

25/09/1973

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

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

03/03/2009 to

15/01/2011

1 year(s) and

11 month(s)

Budapest Prison

15/01/2011 to

10/02/2014

3 year(s) and

1 month(s)

Márianosztra Prison

10/02/2014 to

26/07/2014

0 year(s) and

6 month(s)

Budapest Prison

26/07/2014

pending

1 year(s) and

3 month(s)

3.5 m²

2.7 m²

2.3 m²

2.5 m²

no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week

22,300

300

34750/12

31/05/2012

Dániel Gábor MÉCS

17/09/1986

Karsai Dániel András

Budapest

Budapest Correctional Facility

18/05/2009 to

24/12/2010

1 year(s) and

8 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "A"

10/06/2012 to

20/11/2013

1 year(s) and

6 month(s)

2.8 m²

2.6 m²

no proper separation of toilet, no proper ventilation in the cell, only cold water in cell, bedbugs

11,500

300

11581/13

18/12/2012

Gábor MADOCSAI

15/04/1982

Hajdú -Bihar County Prison

29/05/2008 to

12/10/2008

0 year(s) and

5 month(s)

Jász - Nagykun -Szolnok County Prison

12/10/2008 to

19/01/2009

0 year(s) and

4 month(s)

Márianosztra Prison

19/01/2009 to

04/10/2012

3 year(s) and

9 month(s)

Budapest Correctional Facility

04/10/2012 to

10/06/2013

0 year(s) and

9 month(s)

Márianosztra Prison

10/06/2013 to

25/11/2013

0 year(s) and

6 month(s)

2.5 m²

3.75 m²

2 m²

2.6 m²

shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet

19,300

13378/13

12/02/2013

Előd KAKSZI

03/11/1984

Turán Tünde

Budapest

Budapest Prison, Block "B"

08/03/2011 to

01/06/2012

1 year(s) and

3 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "A"

01/06/2012 to

14/04/2014

1 year(s) and

11 month(s)

3.4 m²

2.6 m²

only cold water in cell, bedbugs

no proper separation of toilet, only cold water in cell, bedbugs

11,500

300

36245/13

29/05/2013

Antal OLÁH

15/07/1967

Rácz Gergely

Budapest

Jász - Nagykun -Szolnok County Prison

30/07/2009 to

18/07/2011

2 year(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "A"

18/07/2011 to

26/10/2011

0 year(s) and

4 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "B"

26/10/2011 to

01/06/2012

0 year(s) and

8 month(s)

Budapest Prison, Block "A"

01/06/2012

pending

3 year(s) and

4 month(s)

2 m²

2.6 m²

2.5 m²

2.6 m²

shower only once a week

shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet

shower only once a week

no proper separation of toilet

21,000

300

46623/13

16/07/2013

József UDVARDI

02/03/1989

Sinyei Dávid

Budapest

Budapest Correctional Facility and Budapest Prison

25/05/2009 to

29/03/2010

0 year(s) and

11 month(s)

Budapest Prison

04/10/2010 to

22/11/2013

3 year(s) and

2 month(s)

3.25 m²

2 m²

no proper separation of toilet, bedbugs

14,300

300

51719/13

05/08/2013

Norbert KÁROLYI

26/12/1980

Márianosztra Prison

29/02/2012 to

28/02/2014

2 year(s)

2.4 m²

shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet, only cold water in cell

8,000

76213/13

27/11/2013

Tivadar Ferenc HERCZIG

23/10/1953

Budapest Prison

03/02/2008

pending

7 year(s) and

8 month(s)

3.5 m²

no proper separation of toilet

25,000

80997/13

13/12/2013

László HUSZÁR

23/09/1975

Budapest Prison

31/03/2010 to

01/07/2013

3 year(s) and

4 month(s)

3.1 m²

12,000

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

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