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, Kudła 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 Articles 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 BakırcıVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
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, 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
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
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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy