CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 octobre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s8BCA9315 { width:35.97pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF16B1C44 { width:17.96pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 57504/16 Sándor LAKATOS against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 October 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Alena Poláčková , President,   Péter Paczolay ,   Davor Derenčinović , judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   57504/16) against Hungary lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 29 September 2016 by a Hungarian national, Mr Sándor Lakatos, who was born in 1969 and lives in Vác (“the applicant”), who was represented by Mr D.A. Karsai, a lawyer practising in Budapest; the decision to give notice of the application to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, Ministry of Justice; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicant, prosecuted and detained for participating in a criminal gang that had perpetrated numerous burglaries throughout the country, was banned from maintaining contact with his partner and his daughter in the period from 10 August 2015 to 6 April 2016. His four consecutive requests to this end were denied, the prosecutor’s office being of the view that the contact would jeopardise the successful conduct of the investigation. 2.     The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal of contact with his partner and daughter for a period of eight months. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 3.     The Government pointed out that the impugned decisions were subject to a complaint to the superior (county) prosecutor, a legal avenue the applicant had not availed himself of. In any event, in their view, the measure complained of was justified under Article 8 § 2 of the Convention. 4.     The applicant disagreed. 5.     The Court notes that each decision in question contained a provision pointing to the possibility of lodging a complaint to the superior authority, the Nógrád County Public Prosecutor’s Office. 6.     A one-time hierarchical complaint within the Hungarian public prosecution system to the county prosecutor has already been found to be an effective remedy to be exhausted (see Bethlen v. Hungary , no.   26692/95, Commission decision of 10 April 1997, unreported; and, a contrario , Haász and Szabó v. Hungary , nos.   11327/14 and 11613/14, §§ 36-37, 13   October 2015). 7.     Since the applicant failed to pursue such a complaint, the application must be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 10 November 2022.     Liv Tigerstedt   Alena Poláčková   Deputy Registrar   President