Information Note on the Court’s case-law 212
November 2017
Domján v. Hungary (dec.) - 5433/17
Decision 14.11.2017 [Section IV]
Article 35
Article 35-1
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
Effective domestic remedy
Application lodged while domestic proceedings were pending under new legislation introduced to deal with prison overcrowding following Varga and Others pilot judgment: inadmissible
Facts – In its pilot judgment regarding conditions of detention in Hungary (Varga and Others v. Hungary, 14097/12 et al., 10 March 2015, Information Note 183), the Court found violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention originating in a widespread problem resulting from a malfunctioning of the Hungarian penitentiary system and, under Article 46 of the Convention, required Hungary to put in practice preventive and compensatory remedies. On 25 October 2016 the Hungarian Parliament adopted Act No. CX of 2016 which enabled complaints concerning conditions of detention to be presented to the prison governor, who could take action to improve the conditions or counterbalance the injury suffered (for instance through relocation, increasing the time allowed for visits or the time spent in the open air, and improvement of the sanitary facilities).
In the instant case, the applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that he had been kept in overcrowded cells in various prisons between December 2010 and July 2016 and did not have an effective domestic remedy.
Law – Article 35 § 1: The Court was satisfied that the 2016 Act provided a combination of remedies, both preventive and compensatory in nature, guaranteeing in principle genuine redress for Convention violations originating in prison overcrowding and other unsuitable conditions of detention in Hungary.
As to the preventive remedy, complaints by prison inmates or their representatives about conditions of detention allegedly in violation of fundamental rights were to be submitted to the governor of a penal institution. If the latter found the complaint to be well-founded he or she was to decide, within 15 days, about necessary actions such as relocation within the institution or transfer to another institution. A further judicial review of the prison governor’s decision was explicitly provided for by the 2016 Act. In the Court’s view nothing proved that the new complaint mechanism would not offer realistic perspectives of improving unsuitable conditions of detention. As to the compensatory remedy, the award offered – between EUR 4 and EUR 5.30 per day of unsuitable conditions of detention – was not unreasonable, having regard to economic realities.
In view of its finding that the 2016 Act met, in principle, the standards set out by the pilot judgment, the Court considered that the applicant and all others in his position had to use the remedies introduced by the Act. In the instant case, the applicant had made use of the remedies but the proceedings were still pending. His complaint was thus premature.
The Court went on to point out that it was ready to change its approach as to the potential effectiveness of the remedies should the practice of the domestic authorities show, in the long run, that detainees were being refused relocation and/or compensation on formalistic grounds, that the domestic proceedings were excessively long or that the domestic case-law was not in compliance with the requirements of the Convention. Any such future review would involve determining whether the national authorities had applied the 2016 Act in a manner that was in conformity with the pilot judgment and the Convention standards in general.
Conclusion: inadmissible (application premature).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy