3 March 2009

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 45069/05 by Zoltán DOBOS against Hungary lodged on 3 October 2005

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zoltán Dobos , is a Hungarian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Budapest .

A. Particular circumstances of the present case

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

The applicant, a pensioner, has served a sentence in Budapest Prison since 1999. The prison authorities deduct from his pension, received directly in prison, a statutory contribution to the costs of his maintenance there.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Section 33(1) g) of Law-Decree no. 11 of 1979 on the Execution of Sentences requires inmates to contribute to the costs of their maintenance in prison.

Under section 159(1) of Decree no. 6/1996. (VII.12.) IM. on the Regulations for the Execution of Prison Sentences and Pre-trial Detention (“the Regulations”), inmates are obliged to contribute to the cost of their maintenance in prison in an amount set by the national governor of penitentiaries. The daily amount of this contribution was 218 Hungarian forints (approximately 0.77 euros) in 2008.

According to section 160(1) of the Regulations, in case of a retired inmate, a deduction of the contribution from his pension is effected only if he has chosen to receive his pension directly in prison.

COMPLAINT

Without relying on any particular provision of the Convention, t he applicant complains that the deduction of the maintenance contribution amounts to discrimination in regard to other retired inmates who have chosen not to receive their pension in prison.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1. Given the imposition of a prison sentence by the State upon the applicant, does the State have a right under the Convention to require such a detainee to contribute to his upkeep in a place where he would not choose to be of his own volition? In this connection, has there been an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, in view of the fact that, for the purpose of his upkeep, a daily amount is being deducted from his pension received in cash directly in prison?

2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, given that the amount in question is being deducted from his pension received in cash directly in prison but not from the pension of those with different arrangements?