FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF LIGETI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 29176/12 and 9 other applications -
see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 December 2015
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Ligeti 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 19 November 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. 30412/12, 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 COMPLAINTS
12. In the application no. 30412/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under another Article of the Convention.
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.
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
13. 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.”
14. 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, 10 March 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
15. 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. 30412/12 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 10 December 2015, 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 / household
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
29176/12
30/04/2012
Attila LIGETI
25/05/1967
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility
07/07/2008 to
05/04/2010
1 year(s) and
9 month(s)
Balassagyarmat Prison
05/04/2010 to
22/01/2011
0 year(s) and
10 month(s)
Budapest Prison
22/01/2011 to
22/01/2014
3 year(s) and
1 month(s)
Sátoraljaújhely Prison
22/01/2014 to
01/09/2014
0 year(s) and
8 month(s)
Baracska Prison
01/09/2014 to
01/10/2014
0 year(s) and
2 month(s)
3.75 m²
2.5 m²
2.3 m²
2.5 m²
2.5 m²
no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week
shower only once a week
no proper separation of toilet
21,500
300
30412/12
09/05/2012
György BENEDEK
25/09/1973
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility, Block III. ("Maglódi/Venyige")
03/03/2009 to
15/01/2011
1 year(s) and
11 month(s)
Budapest Prison
15/01/2011 to
10/02/2014
3 year(s) and
1 month(s)
Márianosztra Prison
10/02/2014 to
26/07/2014
0 year(s) and
6 month(s)
Budapest Prison
26/07/2014
pending
1 year(s) and
3 month(s)
3.5 m²
2.7 m²
2.3 m²
2.5 m²
no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week
no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week
22,300
300
34750/12
31/05/2012
Dániel Gábor MÉCS
17/09/1986
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility
18/05/2009 to
24/12/2010
1 year(s) and
8 month(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
10/06/2012 to
20/11/2013
1 year(s) and
6 month(s)
2.8 m²
2.6 m²
no proper separation of toilet, no proper ventilation in the cell, only cold water in cell, bedbugs
11,500
300
11581/13
18/12/2012
Gábor MADOCSAI
15/04/1982
Hajdú-Bihar County Prison
29/05/2008 to
12/10/2008
0 year(s) and
5 month(s)
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Prison
12/10/2008 to
19/01/2009
0 year(s) and
4 month(s)
Márianosztra Prison
19/01/2009 to
04/10/2012
3 year(s) and
9 month(s)
Budapest Correctional Facility
04/10/2012 to
10/06/2013
0 year(s) and
9 month(s)
Márianosztra Prison
10/06/2013 to
25/11/2013
0 year(s) and
6 month(s)
2.5 m²
3.75 m²
2 m²
2 m²
2.6 m²
shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet
shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet
19,300
13378/13
12/02/2013
Előd KAKSZI
03/11/1984
Turán Tünde
Budapest
Budapest Prison, Block "B"
08/03/2011 to
01/06/2012
1 year(s) and
3 month(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
01/06/2012 to
14/04/2014
1 year(s) and
11 month(s)
3.4 m²
2.6 m²
only cold water in cell, bedbugs
no proper separation of toilet, only cold water in cell, bedbugs
11,500
300
36245/13
29/05/2013
Antal OLÁH
15/07/1967
Rácz Gergely
Budapest
Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Prison
30/07/2009 to
18/07/2011
2 year(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
18/07/2011 to
26/10/2011
0 year(s) and
4 month(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "B"
26/10/2011 to
01/06/2012
0 year(s) and
8 month(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
01/06/2012
pending
3 year(s) and
4 month(s)
2 m²
2.6 m²
2.5 m²
2.6 m²
shower only once a week
shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet
shower only once a week
no proper separation of toilet
21,000
300
46623/13
16/07/2013
József UDVARDI
02/03/1989
Sinyei Dávid
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility and Budapest Prison
25/05/2009 to
29/03/2010
0 year(s) and
11 month(s)
Budapest Prison
04/10/2010 to
22/11/2013
3 year(s) and
2 month(s)
3.25 m²
2 m²
no proper separation of toilet, bedbugs
no proper separation of toilet, bedbugs
14,300
300
51719/13
05/08/2013
Norbert KÁROLYI
26/12/1980
Márianosztra Prison
29/02/2012 to
28/02/2014
2 year(s)
2.4 m²
shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet, only cold water in cell
8,000
76213/13
27/11/2013
Tivadar Ferenc HERCZIG
23/10/1953
Budapest Prison
03/02/2008
pending
7 year(s) and
8 month(s)
3.5 m²
no proper separation of toilet
25,000
80997/13
13/12/2013
László HUSZÁR
23/09/1975
Budapest Prison
31/03/2010 to
01/07/2013
3 year(s) and
4 month(s)
3.1 m²
12,000
[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