CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .sE174D402 { width:142.09pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { 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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sF00A2B95 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 33262/16 Zoltán MAGYAR against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29   November 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2016, Having regard to the observation submitted by the respondent Government and the observation in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr D.A. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   3 and   13 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). THE LAW Complaints under Articles 3 and   13 of the Convention In the present application, having examined all the material before it, the Court considers that for the reasons stated below, these complaints are inadmissible. In particular, the Court notes that the newly introduced domestic remedy in respect of inadequate conditions of detention in Hungary was held to be an effective one in the case of Domján v. Hungary ((dec.), no. 5433/17, 14   November 2017). This remedy was available to the applicant and, indeed, used by him. Thus, the domestic authorities, applying the compensation scale contemplated in the Domján decision, awarded compensation to the applicant in the amount of 646,800 Hungarian forints (approximately 2,000 euros) for the entire period of his detention, save 309 days spent in Tököl Central Prison Hospital. The Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant has been afforded adequate redress in relation to the period covered by the domestic decisions and can no longer claim to be a victim of a violation of his rights under Articles 3 and 13 in this respect. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. As concerns the 309 days spent in Tököl Central Prison Hospital, the Court notes that the personal space available to the applicant varied between 3.85 and 4.9 square metres. In the hospital wards, where he was accommodated according to his changing condition, there was natural light and electrical lighting, isolated toilets, regular pest control, gravitational ventilation and running cold water; with hot showers available regularly outside the ward. Even taking into account the applicant’s allegations about the occasional unavailability of hot showers and about hygienic shortcomings, the Court considers that these circumstances do not attain the minimum level of severity required under Article 3, especially since the complaint relates to hospital wards for bedridden in-patients which situation is not identical to detention in a prison cell. It follows that this part of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention is 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 20 December 2018.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)   Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Date of birth   Representative’s name and location Facility Start and end date Duration Sq. m. per inmate 33262/16 06/06/2016 Zoltán Magyar 03/06/1961 Karsai Dániel András Budapest Márianosztra Prison 08/12/2014 to 22/06/2015 6 month(s) and 15 day(s)   Tököl Central Prison Hospital 22/06/2015 to 26/07/2015 1 month(s) and 5 day(s)   Márianosztra Prison 27/07/2015 to 30/01/2016 6 month(s) and 4 day(s)   Márianosztra Prison 31/01/2016 to 09/02/2016 10 day(s)   Szombathely Prison 10/02/2016 to 18/04/2016 2 month(s) and 9 day(s)   Márianosztra Prison 18/04/2016 to 05/09/2016 4 month(s) and 19 day(s)   Tököl Central Prison Hospital 05/09/2016 to 08/06/2017 9 month(s) and 4 day(s) 4 m²         4.3 m²         4 m²           4.1 m²         4.6 m²         3.0 to 3.5 m 2         3.85 to 4.9 m²