SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 47323/08
Istvánné SZEGEDI
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Nebojša Vučinić, President,
András Sajó,
Egidijus Kūris, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 September 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Istvánné Szegedi, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Mezőtúr. The case was originally introduced by the applicant’s son, Mr Ignác Szegedi, a Hungarian national born in 1979, who was detained at Szeged Prison when lodging the case. On 13 January 2011 Mr Szegedi died. Subsequently Mrs Szegedi declared her intention to proceed with the application.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 September 2004 the Szeged Court of Appeal finally convicted the applicant’s son of indecent assault and murder, and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment to be served in a strict regime facility. From 1 October 2004 he was serving this sentence at Szeged Prison.
On 5 December 2006 the applicant’s son attempted to commit suicide and was taken to hospital in an unconscious condition. According to the medical report, he had perfused unknown liquids into his system and had suffered a partial paralysis in his legs. His state was considered to be permanent. From that point onwards, he needed constant medical treatment and a wheelchair. In accordance with his medical condition, he was transferred to the Nagyfa division of Szeged Prison on 29 January 2007. This division is a fully-fledged hospital of the penitentiary service also capable of treating patients with ailments similar to that of Mr Szegedi. This division sought further counsel from specialists in orthopaedics and surgery, in order better to address the applicant’s conditions, gradually deteriorating because of his paralysis and its complications.
As it appears from the authorities’ subsequent reports, in the evening of 13 January 2011 the guards carried out their usual rounds but found nothing unusual in the ward of the applicant’s son. After the evening retreat at 11 p.m. a ward-mate noticed the applicant’s son snoring in a strange way and immediately alerted the guards. Mr Szegedi was found lying in his bed and bleeding heavily. Despite all efforts by the medical staff to save his life, he died soon afterwards. A tiny blade removed from a disposable plastic razor and a suicide note were found next to him.
According to the forensic expert’s opinion, the cause of death was a cut into the right femoral artery and the massive loss of blood. During the autopsy, the possibility of any external violence or impact was excluded, since there were no signs to indicate that Mr Szegedi had been cut by someone else.
The Szeged Police Department closed the administrative procedure on 13 April 2011 with no finding of suspicion of a crime. On the appeal of Mrs Szegedi, the Csongrád County Police Department, acting as a second-instance administrative authority in charge of cases of death, quashed the decision and remitted the proceedings to the first-instance police body. After a thorough investigation, on 18 October 2011 the Szeged Police Department came to the same result as the first time. It observed that the personnel of the penitentiary institution had fulfilled their obligations, in particular the controlling and monitoring tasks, throughout their whole duty at the material time. Mr Szegedi must have committed suicide between two rounds of the guards. On the appeal of the applicant, the Csongrád County Police Department upheld the first-instance decision on 14 December 2011, relying on several witness testimonies, a graphology test, the medical expert’s opinion and other evidence. The Police Department was satisfied that the death of Mr Szegedi bore no sign of having been caused by another person and that the suicide had not been facilitated by the personnel’s negligence.
The applicant sought judicial review of the administrative decisions, challenging the authorities’ statement that her son had committed suicide and demanded further examinations. The Szeged Administrative and Labour Court rejected the petition on 7 February 2013, endorsing the findings of the police authorities.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that her son’s acts of suicide were in fact attempts of murder by other inmates, not sufficiently pre-empted and investigated by the authorities. Moreover, the medical treatment of her son was inadequate. She relied on Articles 1, 2, 13 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
As to the first suicide attempt, the Court notes that this event took place on 5 December 2006, that is, more than six months before the introduction of the application and the applicant made no submissions of any kind about the ensuing investigations. In this circumstances, the Court cannot but reject this complaint, in application of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4.
As regards Article 2 in the context of Mr Szegedi’s death, the Court notes at the outset that there is no evidence that he died due to an act of the authorities. Moreover, there is no indication whatsoever that his death was a consequence of violence by fellow inmates. The applicant’s submissions in this respect are wholly unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the case file does not disclose any appearance that the prison staff neglected their duties in monitoring Mr Szegedi’s cell. They did their regular rounds, and found nothing suspicious in his ward, as was established by the domestic authorities’ reports. There is no reason to depart from the domestic authorities’ findings according to which Mr Szegedi had committed suicide between two rounds of the guards, using a tiny device concealed on his body. Although receiving medical attention at once, as he was staying in a prison hospital, he died due to massive bleeding. There is nothing to show that the medical care extended to him was inadequate.
As to the ensuing investigation, the Court notes that several authorities dealt with the case, once reopening the procedure on appeal by the applicant and carrying out all the requisite elements of an examination into a case of suspicious death, enabling the establishment of the causes of death and of any responsibilities if applicable.
Lastly, even assuming that the applicant’s son represented a suicide risk on account of the fact that he had made an attempt beforehand, the Court notes that subsequently he was detained in a prison hospital, which made medical help, including psychiatric counselling, readily available to him. In these circumstances, it cannot be argued that the authorities did not respond reasonably to Mr Szegedi’s condition. In any event, it has not been argued before the Court that he had evinced suicidal tendencies between the first and the second attempts (see Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no. 27229/95, §§ 99 to 102, ECHR 2001‑III).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
As regards the allegations about the adequacy of the treatment of the applicant’s son at the Nagyfa division, the Court further finds that there are no elements to disclose any appearance that the medical attention extended to him at this penitentiary hospital was insufficient or exposed him to suffering exceeding what was inevitable because of his condition. There is no appearance of a violation of Article 3 or any other provision of the Convention on this account.
This complaint is likewise manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stanley NaismithNebojša Vučinić
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy