Published on 22 June 2026
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 5832/25
Tamás Tibor TORMA
against Hungary
lodged on 17 February 2025
communicated on 2 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant has been detained at Szombathely Prison since 2016. The application concerns a ban on the applicant’s right to receive visits from, and to contact, A., his friend of 25 years and the godfather of his child, using means of communication otherwise permitted (phone calls, Skype, letters). A. is a celebrity with a criminal record known for his successful rehabilitation.
In 2019, after years of regular contact kept with A. during prison visits and through correspondence, A. was removed from the list of persons whom the applicant had the right to maintain contact with. In his report AJB‑1262‑29/2023, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights established, inter alia, the apparent unlawfulness of the administrative practice underlying the prison authorities’ refusals to record prospective contact persons.
The applicant’s attempt to have A. registered again was unsuccessful. The prison manager and the Prison Governor both justified their refusals by the number of his contact persons and the media attention on A.’s criminal activity in the past. The Vas County Public Prosecutor’s Office tasked with ensuring the control over the lawful operation of Szombathely Prison refused the applicant’s appeal on account of the discretionary power the prison services hold in the subject matter and, in another decision, his request for access to information underlying the prosecutor’s decision. The applicant’s complaint against this decision was rejected by the Attorney General on 27 September 2024 and served on the applicant’s lawyer on 17 October 2024.
The applicant complains that the refusal to register A. was an unlawful and disproportionate measure adopted in a decision-making process that was not fair. He relies on Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention by the prison authorities’ refusal to register A. as the applicant’s contact person, as upheld by the prosecution service? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see István Gábor Kovács v. Hungary, no. 15707/10, §§ 33-39, 17 January 2012, Hagyó v. Hungary, §§ 84-86, no. 52624/10, 23 April 2013; Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v. Turkey, no. 13320/02, §§ 303-304, 2 June 2015, Lebois v. Bulgaria, no. 67482/14, §§ 61-66, 19 October 2017 and Gullotti v. Italy, no. 64753/14, §§ 24-27, 10 July 2025)? Was the applicant involved in the decision-making process to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests?