FIRST SECTION
CASE OF MATA v. HUNGARY
(Application no. 7329/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 July 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Mata v. Hungary,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Péter Paczolay,
Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 7329/16) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 January 2016 by a Hungarian national, Mr Péter Mata, born in 1983 and living in Fulókércs (“the applicant”) who was represented by Ms S. Kapronczay, a lawyer practising in Budapest;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, Agent, Ministry of Justice;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 14 June 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by the police and the potentially racist motives behind the incident, given the applicant’s Roma origin. It raises issues of Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention.
2. In the night of 8/9 September 2014, police were called to the village of Fulókércs for breach of peace. Two officers arrived and fined the owner of a property where a loud party was ongoing. Several other, apparently intoxicated, guests appeared from inside the house and an altercation ensued. One of them was the applicant who got into an angry argument with the officers. Since he refused to stand down despite warnings, he was handcuffed and driven to the Encs Police Department together with the house owner.
3. According to the applicant, he was repeatedly hit by one of the officers during the 15-kilometre trip and anti-Roma insults were uttered. More hits and racist insults occurred once in the yard of the police station and the applicant was sprayed with tear gas.
4. The applicant was at the police station from 00:20 am to 03:30 am. On release, he signed off a statement that he had suffered no injuries while detained. In his application to the Court, the applicant submitted that he had been coaxed to sign the document without a chance to read it.
5. On release, the applicant went to the local medical emergency point, where he was advised to present rather to the County Hospital.
6. On 9 September 2014 the applicant reappeared at the police station and made a formal complaint according to which the officers had brutally handcuffed and ill-treated him during and after the night trip to the police station, and that he had been racially insulted.
7. On 10 September 2014 he presented to the County Hospital. In the medical report issued, the applicant was found to have contusions of the chest and an open wrist wound. It was noted that the applicant had had wrist surgery, including sutures, on 24 August 2014 and that he complained that he had been handcuffed two days before presentation.
8. Investigations for ill-treatment in official proceedings and light bodily injury were conducted by the Debrecen Investigating Prosecutor’s Office, which were discontinued on 19 May 2015 for lack of evidence. The applicant’s complaint was dismissed by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office on 15 July 2015.
9. The applicant complained that he had been subjected to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION10. The Government argued that the applicant should have pursued substitute private prosecution, failing which he had not exhausted domestic remedies. The applicant disagreed.
11. The Court has held in a number of cases that applicants are not required, with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, to bring substitute private prosecution, essentially because to do so would constitute the pursuit of a legal avenue that would have the same objective as their criminal complaints (see R.S. v. Hungary, no. 65290/14, § 38, 2 July 2019, and M.F. v. Hungary, no. 45855/12, § 34, 31 October 2017). The Court sees no reason to depart from those conclusions and considers that the application cannot be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
12. The applicant argued that the brutal treatment (including hits and tight handcuffing on an existing wound) attained the level of severity required for Article 3 to come into play. The Government submitted that the applicant’s statements were contradictory in the domestic proceedings, that there were no independent witnesses of the events and that the medical evidence was scarce.
13. The relevant general principles have recently been summarised in M.F. v. Hungary, cited above, §§ 42 to 45.
14. In the instant case, the applicant complained that during his committal to the police station he was subjected to acts of police brutality. It is true that on his release he signed a statement without a complaint; however, the Court cannot attach much importance to this circumstance in a situation where the signature might have been perceived by the applicant, possibly intimidated, as a de facto condition of release.
15. The Court notes that the applicant went to the local medical emergency point directly after the alleged incident, seeking assistance. The very day after the events, he returned to the police station and made a formal complaint. From that point in time onwards, he consistently maintained his complaints of ill-treatment. When he presented a day later to the County Hospital, contusions were found on his chest and wounds on his wrist. The Court notes the applicant’s unrefuted contention that he had been handcuffed over the existing wound of his previous surgery.
16. In these circumstances, it can be concluded that the applicant had sustained some injuries while in the hands of the police, notably chest contusions and wounds of his previously operated wrist. For the Court, these injuries attain the minimum level of severity required to bring Article 3 into play (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 86 to 90, ECHR 2015). However, the domestic authorities have not provided a satisfactory and convincing explanation for the cause of those injuries by producing evidence establishing facts which cast doubt on the account of events given by the victim (see Bouyid, cited above, § 83). On the basis of all the material before it, the Court therefore finds that the Government have not satisfactorily established that the applicant’s injuries were caused otherwise than by the treatment meted out to him in police custody.
17. There has accordingly been a breach of Article 3 of the Convention in this regard.
OTHER COMPLAINTS18. The applicant also complained under Articles 3 and 14 of the Convention that the investigation into the ill-treatment was inadequate, that the incident was racially motivated and that those motives were not unravelled by the authorities.
19. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has examined the main legal question raised in the present application. It thus considers that the applicant’s remaining complaints are admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on them (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
20. The applicant claimed 19,500 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and altogether EUR 7,875 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the domestic authorities and the Court.
21. The Government contested these claims as excessive.
22. The Court awards the applicant the full sum claimed in non-pecuniary damage.
23. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 5,000 covering costs under all heads.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (substantive limb);Holds that there is no need to examine separately the remaining complaints;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 19,500 (nineteen thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(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;
Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.Done in English, and notified in writing on 7 July 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Liv Tigerstedt Alena Poláčková
Deputy Registrar President