CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 4 January 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39638/15 Csaba József PINTÉR against Hungary lodged on 1 August 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant was serving a short term of incarceration on account of regulatory offences for which he had not paid the fines. On 23   January 2015 he filed a request with the warden seeking extraordinary leave of absence in order to visit his father, terminally sick with cancer. The statutory 30-day time-limit for the examination of the request expired on 22   February 2015. On that day the applicant was informed that his father had died the same day. It appears that no formal decision was ever given on the request. An internal memorandum of the prison administration dated 30   January 2015 shows that the request had not been approved, because the applicant had insisted on visiting the father unescorted. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, given that no decision was given in due time on his request for leave to visit his dying father?   2.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article   8, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?