CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 novembre 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 }   Communicated on 13 November 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 18854/14 Brigitta HEISZNÉ SZŐRÖS against Hungary lodged on 27 February 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 3 December 2008 the Győr District Court convicted the applicant of counterfeiting money. On 18 February 2010 the Győr-Moson-Sopron County Regional Court upheld in essence this conviction. On 13 October 2011 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment. The applicant subsequently complained to the Kúria that the president of the second-instance bench in her trial had previously participated in the case on several occasions as president of a second-instance panel reviewing decisions given by the investigating judge to the applicant’s detriment – a fact that rendered this judge biased. The Kúria dismissed this complaint on 2 September 2013. The applicant was subsequently detained, until 4 October 2013, at Kalocsa Prison, in cramped and inadequate conditions (2.5 square metres personal space, insufficient heating and lighting, infestation by insects). QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the appeal court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Hauschildt v. Denmark , 24 May 1989, §§ 43 to 53, Series A no. 154?   2.     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?