FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 76901/14
Miklós NEMES
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 June 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Georges Ravarani,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 December 2014,
Having regard to the observation submitted by the respondent Government and the observation in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Miklós Nemes, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Kompolt.
The applicant was represented by Mr A. Cech, a lawyer practising in Budapest.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”).
THE LAW
Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention
In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that, for the reasons stated below, the respondent Government cannot be held liable either for the conditions of detention in the Hungarian prisons in which the applicant was detained or for the absence of a related remedy.
In particular, the Court notes that the newly introduced domestic remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Hungary was held to be an effective one in the case of Domján v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 5433/17, 14 November 2017). This remedy was available to the applicant and, indeed, used by him. Thus, on 14 February 2018, the domestic authorities, applying the compensation scale contemplated in the Domján decision, awarded compensation to the applicant in the amount of 1,303,400 Hungarian forints (approximately 4,200 euros) for 861 days spent in inadequate conditions.
The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant has been afforded adequate redress and can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Articles 3 and 13. It follows that the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2018.
Liv TigerstedtVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy