Communicated on 25 March 2015

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 73986/14 A.T. against Hungary lodged on 20 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr A.T. , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1985 and is detained in Sátoraljaújhely . The President of the Section to which the case was allocated granted the applicant ’ s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).

The circumstances of the case

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

On 14 May 2010 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court convicted the applicant of double murder and abuse of firearms. It was found that he had shot dead a man to whom he owed money, so as to get rid of this debt, as well as the man ’ s 10-year old daughter, so as not to leave any witness. The Regional Court relied on forensic evidence, the testimonies of numerous witnesses, the opinions of expert pathologists, psychiatrists and firearm specialists, mobile phone call lists and house searches. The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole (4.Fk.115/2010/44.)

On 9 November 2010 the Debrecen Court of Appeal upheld this judgment (Bf.I.408/2010/8.).

On 13 September 2011 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s petition for review (Bfv.III.298/2011/5.).

Currently, he is serving his sentence in Sátoraljaújhely Prison.

On 23 October 2014 the President of the Republic dismissed the applicant ’ s request for pardon.

With a view to complying with the judgment adopted in the case of László Magyar v. Hungary ( no. 73593/10 , 20 May 2014), the Hungarian l egislator introduced, on 1 January 2015, a mechanism for the mandatory review, after 40 years of imprisonment, of whole life sentences.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 that the fact that he can be eligible for parole only after 40 years of imprisonment amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment .

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has the applicant been deprived of any real prospect of release and thus potentially subjected to inhuman punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, in view of the fact that he will not be eligible for re lease on parole before 40 years (cf. Vinter and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 66069/09, 130/10 and 3896/10 , §§ 120-121, ECHR 2013 (extracts))?