FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF BÓDAY AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 53398/13 and 9 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 Bóday 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.
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 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. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. 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.”
13. 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.
14. 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 applications admissible;
3. Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of an 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)[i]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[ii]
53398/13
15/08/2013
Pál Péter BÓDAY
06/03/1972
Fürjes József
Budapest
Budapest Prison,
20/03/2012 to
20/03/2013
1 year(s) and 1 month(s)
2.8 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (adequate) heating
5,300
300
54330/13
14/08/2013
Péter HARASZTI
31/07/1975
Fürjes József
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility
30/04/2009 to
09/03/2010
0 year(s) and 11 month(s)
Budapest Prison
10/03/2009
pending
6 year(s) and 8 month(s)
2.5 m²
2.8 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (adequate) heating
12,000
300
55601/13
24/08/2013
Kálmán VARGA
14/10/1972
Turán Tünde
Budapest
Szabolcs-Szatmár-Bereg County Prison and Sátoraljaújhely Prison
12/12/2011 to
10/08/2012
0 year(s) and 8 month(s)
2.5 m²
5,000
300
56806/13
02/09/2013
Roland RAMOS
25/03/1992
Szeged Prison, Block III. ("Algyő-Nagyfa")
30/04/2013 to
30/11/2014
1 year(s) and 8 month(s)
Szeged Prison, Block I. ("Mars")
30/11/2014
pending
1 year(s)
2.2 m²
3.1 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
10,000
65103/13
13/10/2013
Ervin BARANYI
08/04/1975
Diószegi Éva
Budapest
Budapest Prison
01/04/1995 to
01/12/1996
1 year(s) and 9 month(s)
Szeged Prison
01/12/1996 to
01/08/2002
5 year(s) and 9 month(s)
Budapest Prison
01/10/2005 to
01/06/2014
8 year(s) and 9 month(s)
Márianosztra Prison
01/06/2014 to
01/07/2014
0 year(s) and 2 month(s)
2.6 m²
3 m²
3.2 m²
3.3 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
26,000
300
18201/14
25/02/2014
Tamás KATONA
13/10/1981
Budapest Correctional Facility, Block I. ("Nagy Ignác/Markó")
25/07/2012 to
12/02/2013
0 year(s) and 7 month(s)
Budapest Prison
12/02/2013 to
19/01/2015
2 year(s)
Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Prison and Budapest Correctional Facility
19/01/2015
pending
0 year(s) and 10 month(s)
3 m²
3 m²
3 m²
infestation of the cell with insects
infestation of the cell with insects
12,300
21840/14
10/03/2014
Tibor SALAMON
25/06/1981
Vidákovics Béla Zsolt
Budapest
Zala County Prison
19/10/2007 to
22/03/2010
2 year(s) and 6 month(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "B"
22/03/2010 to
01/06/2012
2 year(s) and 3 month(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
01/06/2012
pending
3 year(s) and 5 month(s)
2.2 m²
3.1 m²
3 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
26,000
300
22180/14
14/03/2014
Miklós NAGY
15/12/1972
Rácz Gergely
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility and Budapest Prison, Block "B"
25/05/2010 to
20/09/2013
3 year(s) and 4 month(s)
2.2 m²
shower only once a week
12,000
22958/14
17/04/2014
Zoltán ÁRVAI
15/06/1976
Szeged Prison
09/05/2006 to
13/06/2013
7 year(s) and 2 month(s)
2.5 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects
23,500
23555/14
14/03/2014
László Sándor GÖNCZ
21/12/1971
Fahidi Gergely
Budapest
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
13/02/2012 to
27/11/2014
2 year(s) and 10 month(s)
2.6 m²
only cold water in cell, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects, lack of (adequate) heating
10,500
300
[i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[ii] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy