Published on 8 December 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 33262/22
László KERTÉSZ
against Hungary
lodged on 23 June 2022
communicated on 19 November 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the allegedly inadequate medical care provided to the applicant’s brother who died detained in a mental health institution while criminal proceedings were pending against him.
On 13 June 2020 the applicant’s brother, F.K., was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a public official and was remanded in custody two days later. As a forensic expert opinion established that he had been incapable of understanding the significance of his acts at the time in question, on 11 December 2020 the court ordered his interim compulsory treatment (előzetes kényszergyógykezelés) which took place in the Forensic Psychiatric and Mental Institution (IMEI). His interim compulsory treatment was extended several times due to the risk of reoffending.
Meanwhile, in January 2021 F.K. was diagnosed with colon cancer. He underwent surgery in January and April 2021, but refused chemotherapy at the time. In July 2021 he was hospitalised again and diagnosed with malignant tongue cancer. In August 2021 his condition deteriorated, and he was diagnosed with inoperable, terminal cancer. At that point, the applicant’s brother requested that he receive treatment. Palliative radiation therapy was recommended but apparently never took place. On 2 November 2021 he was transferred from IMEI to the prison hospital for further care.
F.K.’s requests for the termination of his interim compulsory treatment because of his terminal illness was rejected by the court on 9 September 2021 and on 4 November 2021 (upheld on appeal on 29 December 2021) because no exact data or expert findings were available regarding F.K.’s state of health and there was still a risk of reoffending. On 9 September 2021 the court ordered an expert assessment, as a matter of urgency. No such assessment appears to have been carried out. The applicant’s brother died on 5 January 2022.
The applicant complains, under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, that his late brother had not been provided with adequate medical care: his health was not monitored regularly, his tongue cancer was diagnosed late, he did not receive palliative care, and his health condition was not taken into account during the extension of his detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland [GC], no. 21881/20, §§ 138-43, 27 November 2023)? If not, the Government are invited to provide relevant domestic case-law on the effectiveness of the remedies available to the applicant but not yet exhausted.
2. Has the applicant’s brother’s right to life, guaranteed by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, was the medical care provided to him during his interim compulsory treatment prompt and adequate (see Dorneanu v. Romania, no. 55089/13, § 48, 28 November 2017; Dzieciak v. Poland, no. 77766/01, §§ 89-92, 9 December 2008)?
3. Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, on account of the alleged inadequacy of medical treatment (see, for the general principles, Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, §§ 98 and 100, ECHR 2014; compare, mutatis mutandis, Selami and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 78241/13, §§ 59-66, 1 March 2018; Karpylenko v. Ukraine, no. 15509/12, §§ 59-66, 11 February 2016; and Boacă and Others v. Romania, no. 40355/11, §§ 44-51, 12 January 2016)?
If so, was the medical assistance provided to the applicant’s brother during his pre-trial detention and interim compulsory treatment compatible with Article 3 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) did the domestic authorities ensure the regular and systematic supervision of the applicant’s brother’s health that involved a comprehensive therapeutic strategy aimed at treating his health problems or preventing their aggravation (see Khalvash v. Russia, no. 32917/13, §§ 55-57, 15 December 2015)?
(b) in view of the terminal illness of the applicant’s brother, did the authorities ensure that his well-being is adequately secured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance, including palliative care?
(c) in view of the terminal illness of the applicant’s brother, did his detention and the rejection of his requests to be released amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention (see Normantowicz v. Poland, no. 65196/16, §§ 79-81, 17 March 2022; Dorneanu v. Romania, cited above, § 80; and Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no. 44084/10, §§ 100-103, 5 March 2013; Dzieciak v. Poland, cited above, §§ 100-101)?
The Government are invited to provide detailed information on the course of medical treatment, if any, which the applicant’s brother underwent in each facility where he was held between 13 June 2020 and 5 January 2022. The Government are also invited to provide full documentation concerning the medical care provided to the applicant’s brother in IMEI and in prison or civilian hospitals.