FÜLÖP v. HUNGARY

 
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14010/15
László FÜLÖP
against Hungary
(see appended table)
 
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 January 2019 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 13 March 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations 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 Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law in regard of his poor conditions of detention.
THE LAW
Complaints under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention and the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law)
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 has been available to the applicant and is, indeed, being used by him. The Court notes that the domestic procedure initiated by the applicant to obtain compensation for the inadequate conditions of detention, in terms of the remedy contemplated in the Domján decision (cited above), is still pending. Consequently, it finds that the complaints under Article 3 are premature and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
As concerns the complaint under Article 13 raised by the applicant, the Court notes that the applicant has a domestic remedy available to him and, moreover, is currently making use of it. This complaint is therefore 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 21 February 2019.
Liv TigerstedtGeorges Ravarani
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident


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)
 
No.
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
Specific grievances   
14010/15
13/03/2015
László Fülöp
27/11/1964
Karsai Dániel András
Budapest
Budapest Prison
26/05/2010 to
29/01/2014
3 year(s) and 8 month(s) and 4 day(s)
 
Pálhalma Prison, Sándorháza Block
14/07/2014 to
13/09/2014
2 month(s)
2.4 m²
 
 
 
 
 
2.9 m²
toilet not separated from the rest of the cell, infestation of the cell with insects
 
 
 
 
infestation of the cell with insects
 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy