FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF TAMÁSI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY
(Applications nos. 65853/13 and 9 other applications
– see list appended)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
7 January 2016
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tamási 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 and costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[i]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[ii]
65853/13
10/10/2013
Viktor TAMÁSI
09/03/1980
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility, Block III. ("Maglódi/Venyige")
30/04/2010 to
13/01/2011
0 year(s) and 9 month(s)
Budapest Prison
13/01/2011
pending
4 year(s) and 10 month(s)
3.75 m²
2.8 m²
shower only once a week, 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
18,800
300
66364/13
15/10/2013
Gergely HORVÁTH
13/01/1975
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budapest Correctional Facility
23/10/2010 to
19/09/2011
0 year(s) and 11 month(s)
Budapest Prison
19/09/2011 to
19/04/2013
1 year(s) and 8 month(s)
3 m²
3.1 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects
shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (adequate) heating, lack of requisite medical assistance
9,800
300
67136/13
17/10/2013
József SZABÓ
01/10/1966
Turán Tünde
Budapest
Budapest Prison
23/05/2011 to
31/05/2012
1 year(s) and 1 month(s)
Budapest Prison
01/06/2012 to
30/07/2014
2 year(s) and 2 month(s)
Budapest Prison
30/07/2014 to
20/09/2014
0 year(s) and 2 month(s)
3 m²
2.7 m²
3.4 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects, only cold water in cell
infestation of the cell with insects, only cold water in cell
12,300
300
67607/13
14/10/2013
Attila MOLNÁR
29/05/1978
Szeged Prison
23/05/2011 to
12/11/2013
2 year(s) and 6 month(s)
Márianosztra Prison
12/11/2013 to
01/07/2014
0 year(s) and 8 month(s)
Szeged Prison
01/07/2014
pending
1 year(s) and 4 month(s)
3 m²
2 m²
3.75 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, only cold water in cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, only cold water in cell, infestation of the cell with insects
15,500
69003/13
21/10/2013
Péter Gyula KÁLMÁN
30/06/1972
Gulyás Gábor
Budapest
Budapest Prison
16/02/2012 to
01/06/2012
0 year(s) and 4 month(s)
Budapest Prison
01/06/2012 to
05/01/2015
2 year(s) and 8 month(s)
2.6 m²
3.4 m²
infestation of the cell with insects
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects
11,000
300
71318/13
07/11/2013
Zsolt BÓNYAI
31/05/1979
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budaörs Police Station
25/05/1998 to
12/11/1998
0 year(s) and 6 month(s)
Budapest Correctional Facility, Block II. ("Gyorskocsi")
12/11/1998 to
01/11/1999
1 year(s)
Budapest Prison, Block "A"
01/11/1999 to
16/11/2000
1 year(s) and 1 month(s)
Szeged Prison
17/12/2001 to
28/10/2002
0 year(s) and 11 month(s)
Budapest Prison
28/10/2002 to
19/09/2013
10 year(s) and 11 month(s)
2.6 m²
2.6 m²
2.9 m²
2.8 m²
2.6 m²
shower only once a week
shower only once a week
shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, shower only once a week
shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
26,000
300
71359/13
12/11/2013
István FEKETE
24/04/1987
Szeged Prison
18/12/2012
pending
2 year(s) and 11 month(s)
1.6 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects
10,800
71523/13
30/10/2013
Imre BALOGH
08/01/1958
Sánta Szabolcs
Budapest
Bács-Kiskun County Prison
14/11/2012 to
17/06/2013
0 year(s) and 8 month(s)
Bács-Kiskun County Prison
26/06/2013 to
30/07/2013
0 year(s) and 2 month(s)
Bács-Kiskun County Prison
06/08/2013 to
21/08/2013
0 year(s) and 1 month(s)
2.3 m²
2.6 m²
2.6 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects
infestation of the cell with insects
infestation of the cell with insects
5,000
300
72597/13
13/11/2013
Károly NAGY
17/03/1969
Budapest Prison
25/12/2009
pending
5 year(s) and 11 month(s)
3 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell
19,800
79737/13
12/12/2013
Rezső József MIHALOVICS
12/07/1952
Budapest Prison
27/06/2012 to
22/06/2014
2 year(s)
2.9 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects
8,000
[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