CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 janvier 2019

.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 } .s7A18460C { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:11.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   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 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)   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