Inadmissible application for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
JUDGMENT
Domján v. Hungary 23.11.2017 (no. 5433/17)
SUMMARY
The applicant, who is a prisoner, has served his sentence in five different prisons in Hungary, where the cells were overcrowded, each had between 3 and 28 prisoners, the appropriate space for each prisoner was less than 3 m, and he could only be outdoors only one hour a day, etc .. He applied before the national courts for the detention conditions, but his case was pending before the Supreme Court. Taking into account the ECtHR that the case was pending before the national courts, it concluded that his action was premature due to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and therefore declared it inadmissible.
PROVISIONS
Article 3
Article 35
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Csaba Domján, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1981 and is currently
detained in Szeged Prison (Hungary).
Between December 2010 and July 2016 Mr Domján was detained in five different prisons in
Hungary. Since July 2016 he has been detained in Szeged Prison. He submits that in all of the prisons
he was kept in overcrowded cells. In particular, the multiple-occupancy cells accommodated
between three and 28 inmates who had – in all but one of the prisons – less than three square
metres of living space per prisoner. He also submits that in several of the prisons outdoor exercise
was limited to one hour per day and that in one prison, where he was detained for ten months, the
toilet was separated from the living area only by a curtain.
Mr Domján has lodged a complaint about his detention conditions under the relevant domestic
legislation which is pending before the Szeged High Court.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Article 3
The Court referred to its pilot judgment of 10 March 2015 regarding conditions of detention in
Hungary (Varga and Others v. Hungary, nos. 14097/12 and others). In that judgment, it had found
violations of Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention originating in a widespread problem resulting from
a malfunctioning of the Hungarian penitentiary system. It had held that Hungary was to put in
practice preventive and compensatory remedies in respect of alleged violations of Article 3 of the
Convention on account of inhuman and degrading conditions of detention.
The Court took note of an Act adopted by the Hungarian Parliament on 25 October 2016 in relation
to the judgment in the case of Varga and Others v. Hungary, aimed at introducing preventive and
compensatory remedies in cases of inadequate conditions of detention, which had entered into
force on 1 January 2017. It was satisfied that the 2016 Act had provided a combination of remedies,
both preventive and compensatory in nature, guaranteeing in principle genuine redress for
Convention violations originating in prison overcrowding and other unsuitable conditions of
detention in Hungary.
As to the preventive remedy, complaints by prison inmates or their representatives about conditions
of detention allegedly in violation of fundamental rights were to be submitted to the governor of a
penal institution. If the latter found the complaint to be well-founded he or she was to decide,
within 15 days, about necessary actions such as relocation within the institution or transfer to
another institution. A further judicial review of the prison governor’s decision was explicitly provided
for by the 2016 Act. In the Court’s view nothing proved that the new complaint mechanism would
not offer realistic perspectives of improving unsuitable conditions of detention. As to the
compensatory remedy, the Court considered that the award offered – between four and five euros
per day of unsuitable conditions of detention – was not unreasonable, having regard to economic
realities.
Having regard to its finding that the 2016 Act met, in principle, the standards set out by the pilot
judgment in the case of Varga and Others v. Hungary, the Court considered that Mr Domján and all
others in his position had to use the remedies introduced by the Act. In his reply to an information
request by the Court Mr Domján had stated that he had made use of those remedies but the ensuing
proceedings were still pending. Noting that it was open for him to lodge a fresh application with the
Court if his application to the national courts proved unsuccessful, the Court concluded that his
complaint was premature and had to be rejected under Article 35 (admissibility criteria).
Other articles
Having regard to its finding that the two new remedies provided for by the 2016 Act were effective,
the Court concluded that Mr Domján’s complaint under Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) was
manifestly ill-founded and therefore had to be rejected(echrcaselaw.com editing).
