Published on 19 September 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 31970/20
Validity Foundation on behalf of Tünde JUHÁSZ
against Hungary
lodged on 14 July 2020
communicated on 29 August 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The application was lodged by Validity Foundation, a non‑governmental organisation (“the applicant NGO”) based in Budapest, Hungary, on behalf of Ms Tünde Juhász, now deceased, a Hungarian national born in 1973. Validity Foundation was represented by Ann Campbell, a lawyer practicing in Budapest.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant NGO, may be summarised as follows.
The death of Tünde Juhász3. Tünde Juhász, a woman with mental disability, was placed on an unknown date in the social care institution for persons with disabilities in Göd, Hungary (hereinafter “Topház”). The management of the institution was taken over by the Charity Service of the Order of Malta on 1 July 2018. Ms Juhász was placed under guardianship on an unspecified date.
4. Between 15 February and 18 April 2017 a team of monitors from the applicant NGO visited Topház and noticed Ms Juhász’s condition. Ms Juhász was constantly tied up to her bed and was emaciated. She had an open wound on her forehead, a black eye and was unresponsive to the monitors.
5. On 3 May 2017 the applicant NGO published a report on the conditions in Topház describing excessive and unlawful use of restraints, lack of proper heating, malnutrition, and physical neglect. The report contained testimonies of violence and abuse by staff and among residents.
6. On 18 May 2017 the Hungarian Commissioner for Fundamental Rights published a report on Topház concluding that the institution lacked adequate care facilities, that the fundamental rights of the residents were violated, and the living conditions could give rise to inhuman and degrading treatment.
7. After the publication of its report, the applicant NGO sought access to the residents of the institution, including Ms Juhász, with the view of providing them legal and other assistance. These requests were however refused by the relevant authorities.
8. Ms Juhász died in August 2018.
9. On 4 February 2020 the Buda Surroundings District Court ordered the social care institution to transmit to the applicant NGO’s legal representative the contact details of the guardians of persons who resided in the institution on 26 March 2018. As it appears from the case file, the applicant NGO has not received this information.
Domestic proceedings(a) Criminal complaints lodged by the applicant NGO
10. On 2 May 2017 the applicant NGO lodged a criminal complaint with the Dunakeszi Police Department, alleging that multiple counts of unlawful deprivation of liberty, endangering of minors, causing gross bodily harm, sexual violence and professional misconduct had been committed in Topház. As evidence, it submitted the description of specific events and testimonies in respect of twenty residents. As regards Ms Juhász, the complaint stated that according to another resident she was constantly restrained to avoid self-harm and that she was malnourished.
11. On 16 May 2018 the applicant NGO amended its criminal complaint, submitting that the professional misconduct of the employees of the institution had led to the death of a resident, P.D. and at least of seven other residents in 2017.
12. On 29 January 2019 the applicant NGO amended its criminal complaint again, submitting that two further deaths occurred in the institution due to the employees’ professional misconduct: that of Ms Juhász and K.K.
13. On 31 January 2019 the Pest County Chief Police Department discontinued the investigation, finding that the impugned conduct of the employees did not constitute a criminal offence. According to the findings of the Police Department, the death of the residents mentioned in the applicant NGO’s submission of 16 May 2018 had occurred due to their severe disability. On 19 March 2019 the Police Department amended its decision dismissing the criminal complaint in respect of the death of Ms Juhász and K.K. finding that there was no suspicion of a criminal offence.
14. On 27 March 2019 the applicant NGO complained about the dismissal of the criminal complaint.
15. On 11 March 2019 the Dunakeszi District Prosecutor’s Office quashed the decision of the Police Department and ordered that an investigation in respect of Ms Juhász and K.K. be opened.
16. On 19 October 2019 the Pest County Chief Police Department discontinued the investigation concerning the death of Ms Juhász and K.K., finding that the impugned conduct did not constitute a criminal offence, as – according to the forensic expert opinion – the death of both Ms Juhász and K.K. could be linked to their illness. As regards Ms Juhász, the decision noted that there had been no causal link between her death and the restraints applied to her.
(b) Collective complaint lodged by the applicant NGO
17. On 14 December 2017 the applicant NGO lodged a collective complaint against Topház, the Directorate of Social Affairs and Child Protection, the Pest County Government Authority, the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of National Development, claiming that the respondents had infringed the personality rights of the residents and had not fulfilled their statutory obligation to supervise the functioning of the institution. The applicant NGO invoked in particular the excessive use of restraints, the lack of adequate social and health care, the degrading living conditions and the absence of rehabilitation and education. As evidence it provided photos of the residents, including Ms Juhász.
18. In an interim decision of 21 February 2019, the Budapest High Court established that the applicant NGO had standing to lodge the collective complaint in respect of the residents of Topház. On 20 September 2019 the Budapest Court of Appeal quashed the decision and remitted the case to the first-instance court.
COMPLAINTS
19. The applicant NGO complains under Article 2 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that Ms Juhász’s right to life was violated. Under the substantive head of Article 2, it submits that Ms Juhász was not afforded proper medical care, compatible with her disability and health. The applicant NGO further alleges a procedural violation of Article 2 of the Convention, arguing that the criminal investigation into the death of Ms Juhász did not satisfy the requirements of effectiveness required by this provision
20. Under Article 13 taken in conjunction with Article 2, the applicant NGO complains that no effective remedy existed in in the domestic legal system for Ms Juhász, a person with disabilities, placed under guardianship and institutionalised.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the Validity Foundation have locus standi, for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention, to lodge the present application on behalf of Ms Juhász?
2. Has the right to life of Ms Juhász, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?
4. Do the facts of the case disclose discrimination against Ms Juhász on the basis of her disability, in breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 2 of the Convention?
5. Was there an effective domestic remedy in the present case in respect of the complaint under Article 2, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?