CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9C156EF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } Published on 30 March 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24469/24 N.T. against Hungary lodged on 16 August 2024 communicated on 12 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged assault of a prisoner by prison guards and the effectiveness of the ensuing criminal investigation into the incident. The 30-year-old applicant has been placed under guardianship fully limiting his capacity to act because of his mild intellectual disability. He has been imprisoned following a conviction for robbery and certain other crimes. On 6 January 2020, returning from his morning walk, he repeatedly disobeyed the orders of one of the prison guards and verbally assaulted him. He was handcuffed and escorted to his cell. According to the applicant, prior to being handcuffed, two guards assaulted him: they struck him several times and one of the guards also kicked him in the leg. On 27 February 2020 criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant for violence against a public official. With a final court decision of 19 January 2023 he was found guilty of that offence and was sentenced to an imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months. Upon his criminal complaint, on 10 February 2020, the investigating authority opened an investigation into the applicant’s alleged assault by the prison guards. Following his several requests in this regard, the applicant was heard on 3 May 2023. On 28 February 2024 he complained about the length of the criminal investigation. On 28 March 2024 the prosecutor’s office adopted a formal decision to discontinue the investigation, citing a lack of evidence that a criminal offence had been committed. The applicant did not challenge that decision. However, it appears that, on 26 March 2024, the investigating authority had already notified the applicant of the termination of the investigation, which he challenged, complaining about the discontinuation of the investigation and about the way the investigation had been conducted, including the authority’s failure to commission an expert opinion on the cause of his injuries. His complaint about the excessive length of the criminal investigation was rejected by the prosecutor’s office on 19   April 2024, while his complaint against the notification of 26 March 2024 was rejected on 27   May 2024. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he had been subjected to ill-treatment before he was handcuffed and that the investigation into the alleged assault was not effective because it was protracted and was not thorough. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Taking into account the circumstances of the case, in particular the applicant’s vulnerability because of his mental disability, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention (see B. v. Romania (no. 2) , no. 1285/03, §   78, 19 February 2013; and M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 75450/12, §§ 121 and 123, 19   February 2015)? Did he invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article 3 of the Convention on which he now wishes to rely before the Court ( see Hanan v.   Germany [GC], no.   4871/16, §§148-151, 16 February 2021)? 2.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention before his handcuffing on 6   January 2020 (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 100-108, ECHR 2015; Boukrourou and Others v. France , no. 30059/15, §§ 77-81, 85-86, 16   November 2017; and Tali v. Estonia , no. 66393/10, §   59, 13   February 2014)? 3.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §   131, ECHR   2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities take all reasonable steps to collect evidence and elucidate the circumstances of the case (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], cited above, §§   114-23; Artyomov v. Russia , no. 14146/02, § 177, 27 May 2010; and S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no. 60561/14, §§ 316 and 318, 25 June 2020)? Did the authorities investigate the applicant’s allegations with reasonable expedition (see Baranin and Vukčević v. Montenegro , nos. 24655/18 and   24656/18, §§   136 and 142, 11 March 2021)? 4.     The Government are invited to submit a copy of the applicant’s complaints concerning the criminal investigation and the Debrecen Investigative Prosecutor’s Office’s replies to them, including the prosecutor’s notification dated 26 March 2024 and the applicant’s “appeal” submitted against it.