CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 10 décembre 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1B9C96E3 { width:14.2pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E1DABD { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s12BF6FF1 { width:180.28pt; display:inline-block } .s177C9FA5 { width:192.62pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sB359E472 { width:97.58%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s9D6935F5 { width:4.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s18CDFAFB { width:9.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s6F3E9276 { width:9.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4DB80EE1 { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s2973D693 { width:13.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sC9646BDC { width:5.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s73886E1F { width:15.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF4BF838A { width:16.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s33EAFEB4 { width:15.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEFEE2430 { width:4.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC29B95D5 { width:9.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s15927FC { width:9.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6A11E46B { width:10.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7DF33C8F { width:13.94%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9973455E { width:5.8%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC1536F8 { width:15.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8B16294C { width:16.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC1209A { width:15.06%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }         FOURTH SECTION               CASE OF LIGETI AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 29176/12 and 9 other applications - see appended list)                                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   10 December 2015       This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Ligeti and Others v. Hungary, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 19 November 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The cases originated in applications against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table. 2.     The applications were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). THE FACTS 3.     The list of applicants, their representatives and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law. In the application no. 30412/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under another provision of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 5.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES   3 AND   13 OF THE CONVENTION 6.     The applicants complained principally of the inadequate conditions of their detention and that they had no effective remedy in this connection. They relied on Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention, which read as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Article 13 “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority...” 7.     The Court notes that the applicants were kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicants’ detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case ‑ law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Kud ła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §§   90 ‑ 94, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , nos.   42525/07 and   60800/08, §§   139 ‑ 165, 10   January 2012). It reiterates in particular that extreme lack of space in a prison cell or overcrowding weighs heavily as an aspect to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the impugned detention conditions were “degrading” from the point of view of Article   3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see, amongst many authorities, Karalevičius v.   Lithuania , no.   53254/99, §§   36 ‑ 40, 7 April 2005). 8.     In the leading case of Varga and Others v. Hungary (nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13, 10 March 2015), the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 9.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicants’ conditions of detention were inadequate. 10.     The Court further notes that the applicants did not have at their disposal an effective remedy by which to submit their complaints concerning their conditions of detention. 11.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. III.     REMAINING COMPLAINTS 12.     In the application no. 30412/12, the applicant also raised a complaint under another Article of the Convention. The Court has examined the complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. IV.     APPLICATION OF ARTICLE   41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Article   41 of the Convention provides: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” 14.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Varga and Others v. Hungary, nos. 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13, and 64586/13, 10 March 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 15.     The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, 1.     Decides to join the applications;   2.     Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law admissible and the remainder of application no. 30412/12 inadmissible;   3.     Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Articles   3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy;   4.     Holds (a)     that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)     that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 December 2015, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy   RegistrarPresident APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law) No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth   Representative name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate Specific grievances Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     29176/12 30/04/2012 Attila LIGETI 25/05/1967 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Budapest Correctional Facility 07/07/2008 to 05/04/2010 1 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Balassagyarmat Prison 05/04/2010 to 22/01/2011 0 year(s) and 10 month(s)   Budapest Prison 22/01/2011 to 22/01/2014 3 year(s) and 1 month(s)   Sátoraljaújhely Prison 22/01/2014 to 01/09/2014 0 year(s) and 8 month(s)   Baracska Prison 01/09/2014 to 01/10/2014 0 year(s) and 2 month(s)     3.75 m²             2.5 m²           2.3 m²           2.5 m²           2.5 m²   no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week         shower only once a week           no proper separation of toilet 21,500 300     30412/12 09/05/2012 György BENEDEK 25/09/1973 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Budapest Correctional Facility, Block III. ("Maglódi/Venyige") 03/03/2009 to 15/01/2011 1 year(s) and 11 month(s)   Budapest Prison 15/01/2011 to 10/02/2014 3 year(s) and 1 month(s)   Márianosztra Prison 10/02/2014 to 26/07/2014 0 year(s) and 6 month(s)   Budapest Prison 26/07/2014 pending 1 year(s) and 3 month(s)   3.5 m²               2.7 m²           2.3 m²           2.5 m²                   no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week       no proper separation of toilet, shower only once a week       22,300 300     34750/12 31/05/2012 Dániel Gábor MÉCS 17/09/1986 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Budapest Correctional Facility 18/05/2009 to 24/12/2010 1 year(s) and 8 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "A" 10/06/2012 to 20/11/2013 1 year(s) and 6 month(s)   2.8 m²             2.6 m²                 no proper separation of toilet, no proper ventilation in the cell, only cold water in cell, bedbugs 11,500 300     11581/13 18/12/2012 Gábor MADOCSAI 15/04/1982     Hajdú-Bihar County Prison 29/05/2008 to 12/10/2008 0 year(s) and 5 month(s)   Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Prison 12/10/2008 to 19/01/2009 0 year(s) and 4 month(s)   Márianosztra Prison 19/01/2009 to 04/10/2012 3 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Budapest Correctional Facility 04/10/2012 to 10/06/2013 0 year(s) and 9 month(s)   Márianosztra Prison 10/06/2013 to 25/11/2013 0 year(s) and 6 month(s)   2.5 m²             3.75 m²               2 m²           2 m²             2.6 m²                                 shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet                     shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet   19,300       13378/13 12/02/2013 Előd KAKSZI 03/11/1984 Turán Tünde Budapest Budapest Prison, Block "B" 08/03/2011 to 01/06/2012 1 year(s) and 3 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "A" 01/06/2012 to 14/04/2014 1 year(s) and 11 month(s)   3.4 m²             2.6 m²   only cold water in cell, bedbugs           no proper separation of toilet, only cold water in cell, bedbugs   11,500 300     36245/13 29/05/2013 Antal OLÁH 15/07/1967 Rácz Gergely Budapest Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok County Prison 30/07/2009 to 18/07/2011 2 year(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "A" 18/07/2011 to 26/10/2011 0 year(s) and 4 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "B" 26/10/2011 to 01/06/2012 0 year(s) and 8 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "A" 01/06/2012 pending 3 year(s) and 4 month(s)           2 m²             2.6 m²             2.5 m²             2.6 m²   shower only once a week             shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet         shower only once a week             no proper separation of toilet   21,000 300     46623/13 16/07/2013 József UDVARDI 02/03/1989 Sinyei Dávid Budapest Budapest Correctional Facility and Budapest Prison 25/05/2009 to 29/03/2010 0 year(s) and 11 month(s)   Budapest Prison 04/10/2010 to 22/11/2013 3 year(s) and 2 month(s)   3.25 m²               2 m²   no proper separation of toilet, bedbugs             no proper separation of toilet, bedbugs   14,300 300     51719/13 05/08/2013 Norbert KÁROLYI 26/12/1980     Márianosztra Prison 29/02/2012 to 28/02/2014 2 year(s)           2.4 m²   shower only once a week, no proper separation of toilet, only cold water in cell   8,000       76213/13 27/11/2013 Tivadar Ferenc HERCZIG 23/10/1953     Budapest Prison 03/02/2008 pending 7 year(s) and 8 month(s)   3.5 m²   no proper separation of toilet   25,000     80997/13 13/12/2013 László HUSZÁR 23/09/1975     Budapest Prison 31/03/2010 to 01/07/2013 3 year(s) and 4 month(s) 3.1 m²       12,000     [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.