Communicated on 6 June 2014

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 76579/13 Zsolt FEJES against Hungary lodged on 2 December 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zsolt Fejes , is a Hung arian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Kiskunhalas .

The applicant was suspected of and charged with aggravated drug offences. He was found guilty by the first-instance court and sentenced to 7 years ’ imprisonment. On appeal, the second-instance court increased the sentence to 10 years ’ imprisonment on 15 November 2006. He has been detained in several Hungarian prison facilities and is currently serving his sentence at Sopronkőhida Prison.

He submits that he was accommodated in cells with less than 3m 2 gross ground surface per person.

He submits that he has been classified in security level ‘ IV ’ , i.e. the most rigorous one, since 15 April 2010. Therefore, he can receive visitors for only one hour every month; however, he is not at all allowed to touch his family members during these visits.

His complaints to various instances of the penitentiary administration about this were to no avail.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 about his overcrowded prison cell. Moreover, he asserts that the scarcity and nature of family contacts amounts to a breach of Article 8. His attempt to obtain effective redress against the material circumstances of his detention was to no avail, which, in his view, amounted to a violation of Article 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment on account of his cramped prison conditions, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

2. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the rules governing family visits? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint about prison conditions under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?