CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 18 May 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 33262/16 Zoltán MAGYAR against Hungary lodged on 6 June 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conditions of detention of the applicant. From 8 December 2014 to 22 June 2015 he was detained at Márianosztra Prison (from 8 December 2014 to 6 March 2015 in a cell of 72 m2 ground surface with 17-21 other inmates; from 6 March 2015 to 4 June 2015 in a cell of 38 m2 ground surface with 11-13 other inmates; and from 4 June 2015 to 22 June 2015 in a cell of 8 m2 ground surface with 2 other inmates). From 22 June 2015 to 27 July 2015 he was detained at Central Prison Hospital (Tököl), where he was accommodated in a cell of 28 m2 ground surface with 5-6 other inmates. From 27 July 2015 to 9 February 2016 he was detained at Márianosztra Prison (from 27 July 2015 to 14 August 2015 in a cell of 24 m2 ground surface with 9 other inmates; from 14 August 2015 to 9 February 2016 in a cell of 38 m2 ground surface with 11-13 other inmates). From 9 February 2016 to 17 April 2016 he was detained at Szombathely Prison in a cell of 26 m2 ground surface with 3-4 other inmates. From 17 April 2016 to 5 September 2016 he was detained at Márianosztra Prison in a cell of 13,8 m2 ground surface with 3 other inmates. On 8 September 2016 the applicant was diagnosed with metastatic cancer, thus he was moved to Central Prison Hospital (Tököl), where he is accommodated now in a cell of 28,5 m2 ground surface with 6 other inmates. Due to his condition, his request for priority treatment was granted by the Vice-President of the Section. The applicant submitted that the conditions of his detention in different prisons, in particular the overcrowded cells, the lack of natural light in the cells, bedbugs, the lack of privacy for toilet and the restricted access to shower and warm water, had fallen short of standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention and that, in breach of Article 13, there was no effective domestic remedy available to him, so as to provide redress for the alleged violations of his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the personal space available in the cell and the sanitary conditions, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, Varga and Others v. Hungary , nos. 14097/12 and 5 others, 10 March 2015)?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaint under Article 3, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?