CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 7 janvier 2016

.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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; 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 } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7FA9F17E { width:178.75pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; 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 } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s4958DB86 { width:3.82%; 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 } .sABFC11AB { width:9.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4F97D58 { width:11.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s60C2E08C { width:8.68%; 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 } .sE26F82C1 { width:18.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s77B0634B { width:7.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE39A2A97 { width:12.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s8DB3563B { width:13.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4343316F { width:14.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9153D187 { width:3.82%; 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 } .s88EA6366 { width:9.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3F1DFF98 { width:11.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFCFAF18D { width:8.68%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC045EB8D { width:18.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sCF8EBB52 { width:7.32%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79BDA5DD { width:12.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F53E219 { width:13.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A5F310D { width:14.12%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF BAKOS AND OTHERS v. HUNGARY   (Application no. 29644/13 and 7 other applications see list appended)                                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   7 January 2016       This judgment is final. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Bakos 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 3 December 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. 33213/13, 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 COMPLAINT 12.     In the application no. 33213/13, the applicant also raised a complaint under another Article of the Convention. 13.     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. 14.     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 15.     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.” 16.     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, §§   118-124, 10   March 2015), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table. 17.     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. 33213/13 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 7 January 2016, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.   Hasan Bakırcı   Vincent A. De Gaetano Acting Deputy Registrar   President     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 (in euros) [1] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [2]     29644/13 17/04/2013 Zsolt BAKOS 13/04/1972 Turán Tünde Budapest Budapest Prison 04/08/2008 pending 7 year(s) and 3 month(s)   3,1 m²     toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects, shower only once a week   23,000 300     31766/13 10/05/2013 Béla MÁTÉ 11/08/1965 Cech András Budapest Budapest Correctional Facility, Székesfehérvár Prison and Baracska Prison 10/05/2010 to 06/09/2010 0 year(s) and 4 month(s)   Juvenile Correctional Facility, Tököl, Budapest Correctional Facility and Székesfehérvár Prison 06/09/2010 to 12/09/2011 1 year(s) and 1 month(s)   Veszprém County Prison, Budapest Correctional Facility and Székesfehérvár Prison 12/09/2011 to 05/03/2012 0 year(s) and 6 month(s)     Budapest Prison, Block "A", Székesfehérvár Prison and Pálhalma Prison 05/03/2012 to 23/07/2014 2 year(s) and 5 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "B" 23/07/2014 pending 1 year(s) and 4 month(s)   2.5 m²             3 m²               2 m²                 2.6 m²             3.1 m²     shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects     shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects       shower only once a week               shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects     shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects   19,000 300     32647/13 14/05/2013 Árpád PAP 18/11/1972 Kalnasi Agnes Budapest Budapest Correctional Facility, Block III. ("Maglódi/Venyige") and Budapest Prison 06/03/2012 to 06/03/2014 2 year(s) and 1 month(s)   2.3 m²     toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, shower only once a week, infestation of the cell with insects   8,300 300     33213/13 17/05/2013 Árpád RECSKÓ 02/03/1985     Budapest Prison 31/12/2011 to 01/05/2014 2 year(s) and 5 month(s)   3 m²         9,300                   62914/13 30/09/2013 Károly MUST 24/12/1976 Sallai András Szigetszentmiklós Bács-Kiskun County Prison and Székesfehérvár Prison 03/03/2009 to 03/04/2010 1 year(s) and 2 month(s) Budapest Prison and Győr-Moson-Sopron County Prison 10/07/2010 to 18/12/2014 4 year(s) and 6 month(s)   3 m²         3 m²     shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell   shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects   19,000 300     64329/13 09/10/2013 József KANALAS 31/07/1978     Vác Prison 14/12/2010 to 01/07/2011 0 year(s) and 7 month(s)   Balassagyarmat Prison 01/07/2011 to 01/07/2012 1 year(s) and 1 month(s)   Budapest Prison 01/07/2012 to 10/02/2014 1 year(s) and 8 month(s)   Baracska Prison 10/02/2014 pending 1 year(s) and 9 month(s)   1.9 m²         2.25 m²       2.5 m²         1.9 m²               toilet not separated from the rest of the cell       toilet not separated from the rest of the cell       only cold water in cell     17,300       18212/14 24/02/2014 István KORBER 31/10/1967 Fahidi Gergely Budapest Budapest Prison, Block "A" 28/04/2012 to 17/08/2012 0 year(s) and 4 month(s)     Budapest Prison, Block "B" 17/08/2012 to 17/12/2012 0 year(s) and 5 month(s)   Budapest Prison, Block "A" 17/12/2012 pending 2 year(s) and 11 month(s)   2.6 m²           2.5 m²         2.6 m²     toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, only cold water in cell, infestation of the cell with insects   infestation of the cell with insects       toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, only cold water in cell, infestation of the cell with insects   13,000 300     20263/14 07/03/2014 György KORONDÁN 18/07/1974 Nemesszeghy Aurél Budapest Hajdú-Bihar County Prison 31/03/2011 to 06/11/2013 2 year(s) and 8 month(s)   2.5 m²     shower only once a week, toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, lack of (regular) physical exercise on fresh air   10,000 300   [1] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [2] .     Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.